Former Bishop Hunger Strike for Youth Interview Policy Change

[Storm Rider]

50 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. 

Today was the first day that I have read anything on Young and his cause célèbre. I read it on "Flip It", but it seemed like the article was from the SL Tribune. He just came off so shrill and over the top that his message was lost on me. I am not objective with these types of actions - I intensely dislike those who run to the press/media to press their case rather than speaking calmly, intelligently about why they feel the way they do. When an individual exaggerates so poorly I walk away and assume they have nothing of worth to discuss. 

I guess in this day and age we have a high number of people that are desperate for their 15 minutes of fame and will find anything that they think will bring it to them. I am past ready to move on. 

[provoman]

3 hours ago, 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?

None taken, tremendous amount given to his sails. In his statement during the DC yesterday, he promoted his cause, he did not address the charges, and I do not even think he acknowledge them. He take a swipe at the Leadership of the Church in Utah. I would say that disfellowship would only embolden him and his followers.

[Tacenda]

If people think that bishops only ask young men/women right before their missions if they masturbate or get into more detail, rather than just if they live the law of chastity, think again. My husband went fishing with a former neighbor in our old ward and this member told him about a young man who has some mental disabilities and is around 15 or so that asked everybody in YM's on Sunday what masturbation means, and that he'd been asked by the bishop if he'd done it. Pretty lame IMO. 

Edited September 11, 2018 by Tacenda

[Kenngo1969]

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

As I said, I'm split on it [the timing of any action by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints against Sam Young] ... I can see both perspectives.  But I don't think that there is something noble in attempting to avoid publicity regarding the decision.

On the one hand, you're "split on it," but on the other hand, you think that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Sam Young's local Priesthood leaders who participated in deciding what action, if any, should be taken regarding his membership somehow are obligated to play into the publicity feeding frenzy he so clearly wants to create? 

Sam Young has made himself a public figure for the express purpose of villainizing the Church of Jesus Christ and its leaders.  That's the difference between him and Brother Smith and Sister Jones, for whom similar proceedings were just held owing to their adultery.  Do you also not "think that there is something noble" in the Church of Jesus Christ and Brother Smith's and Sister Jones's leaders, respectively, "attempting to avoid publicity" regarding the decision in their case?  (Why do I get the faintest hint of a wisp of a feeling that if someone violated protocol or procedure in the case of a Brother Smith or a Sister Jones and spoke to a reporter from the Hicktown Weekly Gazette about their disciplinary proceedings, in contrast to Sam Young's situation, you would be among the first to scream bloody murder ... and rightly so, in that case?)

Are you sure you're not trying, wittingly or not, to "have your cake and to eat it, too" by making the decision to publicize results of disciplinary proceedings (or not) somehow arbitrary?  Are you sure you don't want, wittingly or not, to put the Church of Jesus Christ and leaders who participate in Church disciplinary proceedings in a "damned if they do, damned if they don't" position?  OK, you're entitled to your opinion, I suppose, but, personally, the fact that McKenna Denson, Mike Norton, and perhaps other people of like stripe have jumped on Sam Young's bandwagon tells me almost everything I need to know about how to handle publicity regarding any action taken against Sam Young's membership.  Neither the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints nor any leader who participates in rendering a decision such as this is obliged to meet your (arbitrary!) timetable or procedures (or anyone else's) for how to announce it (or not).

Just because someone (or a huge group of someones) has decided to go camp outside Sam Young's stake center holding signs and candles, or just because the media (cameras, recorders, and notebooks and pens conveniently in hand) conveniently has set up a podium with a huge bank of microphones (one of which, conveniently, belongs to each major media outlet in the area) doesn't obligate Sam Young's Stake President to accommodate him, her, or them.  Sure, if Sam Young insists on villainizing his leaders and the Church of Jesus Christ publicly, in the interests of fairness and, perhaps, of transparency, somehow, the disposition of his case should be dealt with publicly.  But that doesn't mean that the Church of Jesus Christ and its leaders somehow incur the obligation to do so on the media's terms, on the sign-and-candle-holders' terms, or on Sam Young's terms.

Edited September 11, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

On the one hand, you're "split on it," but on the other hand, you think that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Sam Young's local Priesthood leaders who participated in deciding what action, if any, should be taken regarding his membership somehow are obligated to play into the publicity feeding frenzy he so clearly wants to create? 

Nope... I never said that they were obligated.  Not at all.

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

That's the difference between him and Brother Smith and Sister Jones, for whom similar proceedings were just held owing to their adultery.  Do you also not "think that there is something noble" in the Church of Jesus Christ and Brother Smith's and Sister Jones's leaders, respectively, "attempting to avoid publicity" regarding the decision in their case?  (Why do I get the faintest hint of a wisp of a feeling that if someone violated protocol or procedure in the case of a Brother Smith or a Sister Jones and spoke to a reporter from the Hicktown Weekly Gazette about their disciplinary proceedings, in contrast to Sam Young's situation, you would be among the first to scream bloody murder ... and rightly so, in that case?)

I hope you see the difference in your examples (namely, who is creating the publicity).  There are times when the results of disciplinary actions should be made public and times when they should not.  Remember, one purpose of excommunication is to protect the good name of the church.

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Are you sure you're not trying, wittingly or not, to "have your cake and to eat it, too" by making the decision to publicize results of disciplinary proceedings (or not) somehow arbitrary?  Are you sure you don't want, wittingly or not, to put the Church of Jesus Christ and leaders who participate in Church disciplinary proceedings in a "damned if they do, damned if they don't" position? 

Yes, I am sure that I am not doing either of those things.  It's almost like you didn't actually read my post.

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Just because someone (or a huge group of someones) has decided to go camp outside Sam Young's stake center holding signs and candles, or just because the media (cameras, recorders, and notebooks and pens conveniently in hand) conveniently has set up a podium with a huge bank of microphones (one of which, conveniently, belongs to each major media outlet in the area) doesn't obligate Sam Young's Stake President to accommodate him, her, or them.  Sure, if Sam Young insists on villainizing his leaders and the Church of Jesus Christ publicly, in the interests of fairness and, perhaps, of transparency, somehow, the disposition of his case should be dealt with publicly.  But that doesn't mean that the Church of Jesus Christ and its leaders somehow incur the obligation to do so on the media's terms, on the sign-and-candle-holders' terms, or on Sam Young's terms.

I agree.  I never stated otherwise.  You've somehow found in my comments a suggestion that the church was obligated to do something when my statements were quite contrary to that.

Edited September 11, 2018 by rockpond

[Avatar4321]

16 hours 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 agree. It’s a shrewd move a few days later with all a letter. Especially since you can specify reasons for discipline in a letter and if one disciplined posts the letter, the reasons will be clear as day for everyone and they cannot soon what happened

[smac97]

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

If people think that bishops only ask young men/women right before their missions if they masturbate or get into more detail, rather than just if they live the law of chastity, think again. My husband went fishing with a former neighbor in our old ward and this member told him about a young man who has some mental disabilities and is around 15 or so that asked everybody in YM's on Sunday what masturbation means, and that he'd been asked by the bishop if he'd done it. Pretty lame IMO. 

You are telling us what your husband said what a former neighbor said what a young man said what a bishop said.

Anecodotes based on quadruple hearsay are not very persuasive to me.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

I agree. It’s a shrewd move a few days later with all a letter. Especially since you can specify reasons for discipline in a letter and if one disciplined posts the letter, the reasons will be clear as day for everyone and they cannot soon what happened

I quite agree.  Had the stake president communicated the decision verbally, we would have had Sam Young's gloss on what was said.  Communicating by letter A) gives some time and space between the decision and Sam Young learning about the outcome, perhaps time he could use to settle down a bit (and if not, time for media coverage to dissipate), B) allows the stake president to be clear and measures and articulate in specifying the reasons for any discipline, while also disclaiming any reasons that Sam Young might choose to fabricate or mischaracterize; and C) allows the Church a voice in this matter (with Sam Young's enthusiastic consent, since he will be the one publicizing the contents of the letter).

I seem to recall some similar dynamics that were in play when Kate Kelly was excommunicated.  IIRC, she wanted to frame her circumstances in a particular way, but the bishop wrote her a letter, which she then announced, and which announcement in turn piqued the curiosity of people following her story.  So she released the letter, which was very measured and kind and clear, and devoid of the sinister overtones Ms. Kelly wanted to project onto it.

In the end, people like Sam Young and Kate Kelly (and John Dehlin, and Jeremy Runnells, and Denver Snuffer, and Rock Waterman, etc.) are still our brothers and sisters.  We need to do what we can to preserve good feelings with them, or minimize bad ones.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 11, 2018 by smac97

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

I agree. It’s a shrewd move a few days later with all a letter. Especially since you can specify reasons for discipline in a letter and if one disciplined posts the letter, the reasons will be clear as day for everyone and they cannot soon what happened

My recollection of the process (when I served in a bishopric we were fortunate to only need one disciplinary council over 5 years, so I am not well versed) is that you always document the results in a letter to the member.  But, in this case, I think it is especially important given Young's methods.  He posts nearly everything on his blog, including correspondence.  So, it would be out of character for him to not post the letter with the results of the DC.  That way, the SP can maintain confidentiality on their end but the true reasons for his potential excommunication (or whatever the outcome is) will be publicized for all to see.

If he doesn't post the letter... it would make me question what he is hiding.

[Avatar4321]

15 hours ago, rockpond said:

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.

They aren’t trying to help.

[HappyJackWagon]

25 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

I agree. It’s a shrewd move a few days later with all a letter. Especially since you can specify reasons for discipline in a letter and if one disciplined posts the letter, the reasons will be clear as day for everyone and they cannot soon what happened

I think "shrewd" is an apt description. If this were politics, I would respect it. If this were more about the church and the men convening the DC, I'd respect it. But it appears to me like the leaders are behaving in a way that only makes sense if viewed from the prism of their own needs. How do they diffuse the situation so it doesn't blow back on them? How do they get rid of the protesters? How do they take the wind out of Sam's sails? Shrewd is right. But I find it very disappointing, especially if we are to believe the line about this being for Bishop Young's benefit. If it was, they wouldn't be playing shrewd political games.

It strikes me as particularly cowardly to call a man in to judge him in a way that could impact his eternal salvation, and then delay telling him the decision out of fear, or for some political purpose. I'm not impressed.

[Avatar4321]

15 hours 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.

Two questions:

1) Is it their decision or is it the Lord’s?

2) how does sending out a letter make their decision any less owned?

[Scott Lloyd]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You are telling us what your husband said what a former neighbor said what a young man said what a bishop said.

Anecodotes based on quadruple hearsay are not very persuasive to me.

Thanks,

-Smac

We used to play a game in school. Some know it by the name of “Telephone.” We called it “Gossip.” I think that’s a more apt name. The first person would whisper a message into the ear of the next, who in turn would repeat it into the ear of the next, and so on down the line. By the time it got to the last person in line, the message bore little-to-no resemblance to the original version. 

And so it is with gossip in real life. Wise people will do as Smac does here and not put much credence in gossip chains. 

Edited September 11, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

16 hours 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?

It seems pretty wise to not feed into the media frenzy Sam Young is trying to create.  These are sacred matters.  Just because Sam Young is choosing to sensationalize them doesn't mean the local leaders need to go along with those efforts.  To the contrary, holding off on the decision seems to be the best move for all involved.

16 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Is it to review the results with leaders up the chain before making it official on a high profile case like this?

Perhaps, but I doubt it.

16 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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 have participated in many DCs also, and have not been involved in any that involved a delayed decision.  But there is precedent.  Kate Kelly, for example.  As I recall, she initially only quoted a portion of the letter (first sent as an email) publicly.  The Church then took this interesting step:

Quote

Well, this development is interesting:

“The Church’s response to this situation is in the letter that was sent to Sister Kelly, which explained the decision and the reason for it,” according to a statement from the LDS Church. “Since Ordain Women has chosen to publish only selected excerpts with their interpretation, we suggest that Sister Kelly make the full letter available in the interests of transparency.”

Are there portions of the letter which may be less than helpful to the media narrative Kate Kelly has been trying to construct?

And here:

Quote

  On 6/23/2014 at 3:51 PM, stemelbow said:

Beats me. Why is a spokesperson asking her to release it in its entirety?

"In the interests of transparency" was the rationale given. Frankly, I think the Church would have preferred for Kate Kelly to not publicize and sensationalize her disciplinary process. But given her current posture against the Church, all the Church can do is request that if she is going to publicize communications, that she do so without hiding certain aspects of them.

  On 6/23/2014 at 3:51 PM, stemelbow said:

Is the spokesperson or the Church suspicious? If the Church wants to see it, contact the bishop.

The Church is not publicizing/sensationalizing this. Kate Kelly is. If that is her preferred course of action, then transparency would be appropriate, would it not?

Are you suggesting that Kate Kelly should hide certain things from public view?

  On 6/23/2014 at 3:51 PM, stemelbow said:

If the Church already knows what's in it and feels the needs to make it public to clear things up, then do it yourself. Don't ask another. The bishop in this case is representing the Church after all.

So you're giving Kate Kelly a pass to hide parts of the letter? Why? She's released parts of it, so why not all of it?

I also noted this:

Quote

Quote

Just a thought: How do you know that the Bishop didn't call Kate on the phone, or attempt to call her?  All we have is KK's well-crafted martyr narrative.

If I was the bishop, I would be very wary of making any phone call to KK, because of a very high likelihood of a recording being made of a confidential conversation.

My two bits: Lawyers regularly refrain from using the telephone to communicate important messages, particularly in adversarial situations.  They instead resort to written communications, as this eliminates the risk of miscommunications, after-the-fact misrepresentations about what was said, and so forth.  Written communications also usually keep the discussion civil and professional, and avoid emotional back-and-forth type things that can come up in a telephone call.

In the present case, Kate Kelly is a lawyer, and so is her bishop.  And Kate Kelly has publicized and sensationalized every communication she has had on this issue.  She has also publicly defamed her bishop.  Given these considerations, I think a written communication was a very sensible way to go about notifying Kate Kelly (also, it may be the procedure set forth in the CHI).

And then this (later in the same day):

Quote

The full text of the letter has been released by the OW group: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865605659/Ordain-Women-releases-LDS-bishops-letter-giving-reasons-for-Kellys-excommunication.html

Here is a link to a PDF of the letter itself: http://www.deseretnews.com/media/pdf/1365030.pdf

Having read the letter, our own Bluebell remarked:

Quote

  On 6/23/2014 at 4:18 PM, smac97 said:

The full text of the letter has been released by the OW group: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865605659/Ordain-Women-releases-LDS-bishops-letter-giving-reasons-for-Kellys-excommunication.html

Here is a link to a PDF of the letter itself: http://www.deseretnews.com/media/pdf/1365030.pdf

Thanks,

-Smac

That certainly does clear up a few things, mainly issues about how unfair it was that she was tried in absentia as well as never having any contact from her bishop before she was informed of the DC.

And perhaps the biggest in accuracy that she has been claiming-that she was disciplined for disagreeing with the church or having questions.

And another commenter:

Quote

I just read a scan of the entire letter sent by the bishop to the now Ms. Kelly. Since it is marked confidential, I won't post the link, but if you are curious, it's proliferating like mad on the interwebs. It would have had to have been someone from the OW side who scanned and posted it.

Short version is that Ms. Kelly is leaving out some important parts of the timeline. What happened to her could not have in any way been a surprise. 

And Calm:

Quote

Full text is here:

http://www.theculturalhallpodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Notice-of-Decision.pdf

And it makes a difference...

And another:

Quote

  On 6/23/2014 at 4:18 PM, smac97 said:

The full text of the letter has been released by the OW group: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865605659/Ordain-Women-releases-LDS-bishops-letter-giving-reasons-for-Kellys-excommunication.html

Here is a link to a PDF of the letter itself: http://www.deseretnews.com/media/pdf/1365030.pdf

Thanks,

-Smac

Sounds to me like much effort and prayer went in to try and dissuade her from the course she chose.

And another:

Quote

I urge everyone to read the full text, I am surprised she posted it. It explains why she was excommunicated and is still encouraging her to return to the fold.

And my summary of the letter:

Quote

Here's a partial transcript:

I wish you had taken advantage of my offer to arrange a secure video link where we could have talked face to face or my offer to reschedule the council to a date when you could have attended in person.

The decision to hold this disciplinary council was reached only after a period of months and a series of meetings and communications between you and President Wheatley together with me or President Lee:

 

• On December 12, 2013, President Wheatley and I met with you.  We talked with you about the doctrine of the priesthood.  We urged you to dissociate yourself from Ordain Women and to cease your campaign to promote the ordination of women.

 

• In March and April of this year, President Wheatley again reminded you of the counsel given in December.  Nonetheless, you proceeded with your protest on Temple Square during General Conference despite the request of Church leaders that you not do so.

 

• Subsequently, under your leadership and with your direct involvement, Ordain Women announced "Six Discussions" which were intended to proselyte others and to persuade them to support your particular intepretation of Church doctrine.  You reached out to others to persuaded them to joint your movement.

 

• On May 5th, after conferring with me and with my full agreement, President Wheatley again met with you together with President Lee, offered the same counsel previously given and placed you on informal probation in the hope that you still might change your course.  Yet, you have persisted undeterred.

 

The difficulty, Sister Kelly, is not that you say you have questions or even that you believe that women should receive the priesthood.  The problem is that you have persisted in an aggressive effort to persuade other Church members to your point of view and that your course of action has threatened to erode the faith of others.  You are entitled to your views, but you are not entitled to promote them and proselyte others to them while remaining in full fellowship in the Church.  This is the basic point that President Wheatley has sought repeatedly to explain to you, but to no avail.  You ahve also heard from President Lee and me on this.  Your disregard of our advice and counsel left us no alternative but to convene last evening's council.

 

If you have any questions or would like to visit with me, please contact me.  You have a right ot appeal the decision to the stake president.  If you want to appeal this decision, you must specify in writing the alleged errors or unfairness in the procedure or decision and then present the appeal within 30 days to me as the presiding officer of the bishop's disciplinary council.  I will then forward the materials to President Wheatley who may decide whether to let the decision stand, modify it or direct that the council reconvene.

 

Above all else, please know of my love and respect for you and my earnest desire that you return to good standing in the Church.  I urge you to continue to attend church, read the scriptures and pray daily.  I invite you to strive to come back to full fellowship.  This is an opportunity for you to begin anew, to take full advantage of the great gift of the Atonement, to again qualify for the blessings of the temple, and to enjoy again all of the blessings of the restored gospel.  It is my sincere desire that you will do so.

 

So what do we learn from this?  A few things at least:

 

1. Kate Kelly's narrative about her bishop not communicating with her prior to taking disciplinary measures is patently false.

 

2. Kate Kelly's characterization of her bishop as "cowardly and unchristlike" is difficult/impossible to reconcile with the man who wrote the above letter.

 

3. Kate Kelly's narrative that she was targeted for disciplinary action because she is a woman is patently false.

 

4. Kate Kelly apparently attempted to frustrate the disciplinary process or else challenge its legitimacy by refusing to participate in it.  She had every opportunity to participate and refused to do so.

 

5. Kate Kelly's narrative about her disciplinary council being about "questioning" is patently false.

 

What else?

I suspect we'll see some similar dynamics in play with Sam Young.  So far he has been able to say pretty much whatever he wants, with virtually no response from the Church.  Now he has set up circumstances that will pretty much obligate him to publish the letter.  And the letter will likely "clear up a few things," just as Kate Kelly's bishop's letter did.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[provoman]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think "shrewd" is an apt description. If this were politics, I would respect it. If this were more about the church and the men convening the DC, I'd respect it. But it appears to me like the leaders are behaving in a way that only makes sense if viewed from the prism of their own needs. How do they diffuse the situation so it doesn't blow back on them? How do they get rid of the protesters? How do they take the wind out of Sam's sails? Shrewd is right. But I find it very disappointing, especially if we are to believe the line about this being for Bishop Young's benefit. If it was, they wouldn't be playing shrewd political games.

It strikes me as particularly cowardly to call a man in to judge him in a way that could impact his eternal salvation, and then delay telling him the decision out of fear, or for some political purpose. I'm not impressed.

Considering that Mckenna Denson is on video telling someone effectively just barge on in, and Ethan Krok is there ro get the footage s, it is wise to allow the HC and others to avoid a mob. 

As Jesus taught "wise but harmless".

 

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think "shrewd" is an apt description. If this were politics, I would respect it. If this were more about the church and the men convening the DC, I'd respect it. But it appears to me like the leaders are behaving in a way that only makes sense if viewed from the prism of their own needs. How do they diffuse the situation so it doesn't blow back on them? How do they get rid of the protesters? How do they take the wind out of Sam's sails? Shrewd is right. But I find it very disappointing, especially if we are to believe the line about this being for Bishop Young's benefit. If it was, they wouldn't be playing shrewd political games.

It strikes me as particularly cowardly to call a man in to judge him in a way that could impact his eternal salvation, and then delay telling him the decision out of fear, or for some political purpose. I'm not impressed.

Two things: 

First, there is no cowardice in formally confronting an individual about his wrongdoing according to the pattern the Lord set in place. 

Second, it is not cowardly to frustrate the script of a sensational propaganda machine. I’d call it prudent. 

Edited September 11, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, provoman said:

Considering that Mckenna Denson is on video telling someone effectively just barge on in, and Ethan Krok is there ro get the footage s, it is wise to allow the HC and others to avoid a mob. 

As Jesus taught "wise but harmless".

 

So now it's about safety against a mob?

Were police present? I believe so. Are police able to control a "mob" of 30 people? I sure hope so. We're not really talking about a violent mob here. If there weren't enough police to provide safety, could more be called? Of course.

So if they kicked the can down the road for 3 days out of fear for their safety, while also having police present, strikes me as weak and cowardly.

[provoman]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So now it's about safety against a mob?

Were police present? I believe so. Are police able to control a "mob" of 30 people? I sure hope so. We're not really talking about a violent mob here. If there weren't enough police to provide safety, could more be called? Of course.

So if they kicked the can down the road for 3 days out of fear for their safety, while also having police present, strikes me as weak and cowardly.

It can be about whatever you want, I only offer a reasonable explanation based on observation. 

Of course you could always contact the SP and ask him yourself.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So now it's about safety against a mob?

Were police present? I believe so. Are police able to control a "mob" of 30 people? I sure hope so. We're not really talking about a violent mob here. If there weren't enough police to provide safety, could more be called? Of course.

So if they kicked the can down the road for 3 days out of fear for their safety, while also having police present, strikes me as weak and cowardly.

If it is even necessary to have police present, it sure smells like a mob to me. 

[Avatar4321]

25 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think "shrewd" is an apt description. If this were politics, I would respect it. If this were more about the church and the men convening the DC, I'd respect it. But it appears to me like the leaders are behaving in a way that only makes sense if viewed from the prism of their own needs. How do they diffuse the situation so it doesn't blow back on them? How do they get rid of the protesters? How do they take the wind out of Sam's sails? Shrewd is right. But I find it very disappointing, especially if we are to believe the line about this being for Bishop Young's benefit. If it was, they wouldn't be playing shrewd political games.

It strikes me as particularly cowardly to call a man in to judge him in a way that could impact his eternal salvation, and then delay telling him the decision out of fear, or for some political purpose. I'm not impressed.

If he doesn’t believe it affects anything why would it matter?

if someone is whipping up a mob outside it seems shrewd not to give them a reason to create a scene.

if someone is going to publicize and spin a matter in the public it seems shrewd to preserve the truth in writing.

presuming the truth may seem political but it’s important nonetheless.  I care less how things look and more that things are done in wisdom and love. Wisdom often appears political even when it may have nothing to do with it

[rockpond]

25 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Two questions:

1) Is it their decision or is it the Lord’s?

2) how does sending out a letter make their decision any less owned?

1)  Only known by the men in the room.

2)  For me, owning it means not being afraid of the world knowing, not delaying for the sake of avoiding publicity.  I'm not saying that's the reason for their decision to mail the outcome.  There could be several reasons.  And, that particular reason may not have even crossed their minds.

I'll reiterate what I wrote before:  I'm split on this and, as I said earlier, if I had been in that SP/HC I likely would have leaned the way they did.  I just don't find anything notably praiseworthy in delaying communication of the decision to Young.  

I also leave room for the possibility that they felt a need to fast, pray, and/or study prior to reconvening and making a decision.

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think "shrewd" is an apt description. If this were politics, I would respect it. If this were more about the church and the men convening the DC, I'd respect it. But it appears to me like the leaders are behaving in a way that only makes sense if viewed from the prism of their own needs.

Not at all.  Sam Young's welfare is impaired by the media frenzy he is creating.  By the antagonism he is fomenting.  The local leader's decision is wise, as it gives time to diffuse the high emotions currently in play.  These are sacred matters, and not really appropriate for a media spectacle.

Quote

How do they diffuse the situation so it doesn't blow back on them?

A letter gives him some space.  During the disciplinary counsel he was in a frenzy of rebellion and self-aggrandizement and media sensationalism.  Taking a step back makes a lot of sense for everyone.

A letter is beneficial to Sam Young.

Quote

How do they get rid of the protesters?

I'm confused.  Are you suggesting that protesters in a church parking lot protesting our religious observances is a good thing?  That the local leaders should foment and encourage and feed into such things?

Surely not.

Quote

How do they take the wind out of Sam's sails? Shrewd is right. But I find it very disappointing, especially if we are to believe the line about this being for Bishop Young's benefit. If it was, they wouldn't be playing shrewd political games.

Meh.  There is nothing "political" here.  The local leaders acted wisely in not feeding a media frenzy.

Quote

It strikes me as particularly cowardly to call a man in to judge him in a way that could impact his eternal salvation, and then delay telling him the decision out of fear, or for some political purpose. I'm not impressed.

Oh, brother.

-Smac

Edited September 11, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So now it's about safety against a mob?

Were police present? I believe so. Are police able to control a "mob" of 30 people? I sure hope so. We're not really talking about a violent mob here. If there weren't enough police to provide safety, could more be called? Of course.

So if they kicked the can down the road for 3 days out of fear for their safety, while also having police present, strikes me as weak and cowardly.

Right.  And publicly slandering fellow members of the Church whom you've never met, who have stewardship where you do not, who have participated in disciplinary matters where you have not, who sought guidance through prayer and counsel, and making these accusations while hiding behind an online pseudonym, is . . . what, exactly?  

-Smac

[Avatar4321]

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

1)  Only known by the men in the room.

2)  For me, owning it means not being afraid of the world knowing, not delaying for the sake of avoiding publicity.  I'm not saying that's the reason for their decision to mail the outcome.  There could be several reasons.  And, that particular reason may not have even crossed their minds.

I'll reiterate what I wrote before:  I'm split on this and, as I said earlier, if I had been in that SP/HC I likely would have leaned the way they did.  I just don't find anything notably praiseworthy in delaying communication of the decision to Young.  

I also leave room for the possibility that they felt a need to fast, pray, and/or study prior to reconvening and making a decision.

I don’t think they are factoring publicity into it other than to make it a non factor

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Right.  And publicly slandering fellow members of the Church whom you've never met, who have stewardship where you do not, who have participated in disciplinary matters where you have not, who sought guidance through prayer and counsel, and making these accusations while hiding behind an online pseudonym, is . . . what, exactly?  

-Smac

Yeah. The irony seemed rather rich to me as well. 

Incidentally, I post under my real name. And I know Smac97 (Spencer McDonald) has made no secret of his.