Former Bishop Hunger Strike for Youth Interview Policy Change

[HappyJackWagon]

14 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

I'm not claiming to judge anyone's eternal salvation or damn their progression via excommunication and removal of all saving ordinances. That is a much bigger deal than a guy giving his opinion on a discussion board.

I like your pseudonym as well.

[Avatar4321]

The option of using a letter is not a new communication technique. It’s also one that all parties would be aware of. Why would this option exist if there was something inherently cowardly about it?

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

So everyone who doesn't post under their real name is a coward? Or what? What point are you trying to make here?

[Avatar4321]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm not claiming to judge anyone's eternal salvation or damn their progression via excommunication and removal of all saving ordinances. That is a much bigger deal than a guy giving his opinion on a discussion board.

I like your pseudonym as well.

He posts under his name

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, Avatar4321 said:

The option of using a letter is not a new communication technique. It’s also one that all parties would be aware of. Why would this option exist if there was something inherently cowardly about it?

The letter is ALWAYS a part of the final decision. A letter is given to the individual so there is clarity of the decision and as a way for the individual to remember the requirements so they can work on meeting those requirements. A letter is not unusual.

What is unusual is NOT telling the person the decision. "Your eternal salvation is in the mail" isn't all that impressive. Normally, the DC will be held, the SP and HC will deliberate. The SP will excuse himself and his counselors to consider further and to pray, then they come back and share their decision with the individual. They will then advise the individual that they will receive a letter for the purposes I stated. But the SP isn't willing to tell Sam Young face to face? Presumably for "shrewd" purposes of diffusing an unruly mob. Passing an eternal judgement via letter is extremely impersonal. Maybe the SP could just send a text. "X'd".   It would be about as personal as the letter. If the SP's primary concern was for Sam Young, I don't believe he would do things this way.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If the SP's primary concern was for Sam Young, I don't believe he would do things this way.

That seems like a really big assumption, especially since we don't actually know why the decision was delayed.

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The letter is ALWAYS a part of the final decision. A letter is given to the individual so there is clarity of the decision and as a way for the individual to remember the requirements so they can work on meeting those requirements. A letter is not unusual.

What is unusual is NOT telling the person the decision. "Your eternal salvation is in the mail" isn't all that impressive. Normally, the DC will be held, the SP and HC will deliberate. The SP will excuse himself and his counselors to consider further and to pray, then they come back and share their decision with the individual. They will then advise the individual that they will receive a letter for the purposes I stated. But the SP isn't willing to tell Sam Young face to face? Presumably for "shrewd" purposes of diffusing an unruly mob. Passing an eternal judgement via letter is extremely impersonal. Maybe the SP could just send a text. "X'd".   It would be about as personal as the letter. If the SP's primary concern was for Sam Young, I don't believe he would do things this way.

It's a bed of Sam's own making, though. Dollars to doughnuts, they would have told him the decision that night if he wasn't so wont to do media circus shenanigans --- and with the McKenna Denson/Mike Norton + groupies show outside. 

It's not like Sam has clean hands, here. It's aggravating to him and his fellow travelers because of his "live streaming" approach --- and the delayed letter tangibly grinds the "live update" culture to a halt. If Sam had behaved better vis a vis the Church, then he could have been notified like regular people are. 

Sam, this is why you can't have nice things . . .  

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

He posts under his name

Not here.  I didn't know his name until Scott just posted it.  Maybe he uses his irl name elsewhere, but here he posts under a pseudonym. 

(Ha!  I see he's added his name now .....very clever!)

Edited September 11, 2018 by ALarson

[smac97]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm not claiming to judge anyone's eternal salvation or damn their progression via excommunication and removal of all saving ordinances. 

But you are publicly accusing fellow members of the Church of cowardice.  While hiding behind an online pseudonym.  How would you characterize that?

And it's really odd that you appear to be further criticizing these men by characterizing them as "claiming to judge anyone's eternal salvation or damn their progression via excommunication and removal of all saving ordinances."  Um, didn't you just get finished saying that you have participated in disciplinary councils?  When you did so, were you "claiming to judge anyone's eternal salvation or damn their progression via excommunication and removal of all saving ordinances?"

FWIW, I've never been involved in a disciplinary council in which the participants felt they were "judg[ing] anyone's eternal salvation."  Not.  One.  Person.  Disciplinary councils facilitate the imposition of church discipline, and necessarily involve a "Judge in Israel" component.  However, we all know and readily acknowledge that, in the end, "the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son."  (John 5:22).  

The irony here is . . . strong.  Your complaint here is very strange.

-Smac

Edited September 11, 2018 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So everyone who doesn't post under their real name is a coward? Or what? What point are you trying to make here?

Not everyone here uses cover of anonymity when posting accusations of cowardice against priesthood leaders who are performing their duty in humility and prudence. As I said, I find the irony rich. You can take me at my word (attested to with my real name). 

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The letter is ALWAYS a part of the final decision. A letter is given to the individual so there is clarity of the decision and as a way for the individual to remember the requirements so they can work on meeting those requirements. A letter is not unusual.

What is unusual is NOT telling the person the decision.

Unusual, but not unheard of.

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

"Your eternal salvation is in the mail" isn't all that impressive.

Meh.  Civil judges do this all the time.  They first receive written arguments from the parties, then usually have a hearing at which oral argument is heard, then the judge "takes the matter under advisement."

Your gripe is an exercise in faultfinding, that's all.  In no other circumstance would we fault someone for taking time to make an important decision - which by your own reckoning potentially involves their eternal salvation.  And yet here you are, publicly slandering your fellow Church members for taking some time to give this matter some consideration, and for not feeding into a media frenzy outside the stake center doors.

And you venting these complaints and slandering these good brethren through the convenient anonymity of your pseudonymn.  

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Normally, the DC will be held, the SP and HC will deliberate. The SP will excuse himself and his counselors to consider further and to pray, then they come back and share their decision with the individual. They will then advise the individual that they will receive a letter for the purposes I stated. But the SP isn't willing to tell Sam Young face to face? Presumably for "shrewd" purposes of diffusing an unruly mob. Passing an eternal judgement via letter is extremely impersonal. Maybe the SP could just send a text. "X'd".   It would be about as personal as the letter. If the SP's primary concern was for Sam Young, I don't believe he would do things this way.

And your public slanders continue.  Now you presume to judge the stake president's motives, eh?  And you do so while hiding behind an online pseudonym.

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Not here.  I didn't know his name until Scott just posted it.  Maybe he uses his irl name elsewhere, but here he posts under a pseudonym. 

If you look you can find it. On this board. 

Can I find your real name here? 

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Not here.  I didn't know his name until Scott just posted it.  Maybe he uses his irl name elsewhere, but here he posts under a pseudonym. 

(Ha!  I see he's added his name now .....very clever!)

I don't want to get in the middle of all of this name stuff, but just for accuracy's sake, he has posted under his name here in the past.  I've known his name for a while and this is the only message board I post on.

 

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So everyone who doesn't post under their real name is a coward? Or what? What point are you trying to make here?

I think

• A) members of the Church who
• B) publicly libel other members of the Church (as in publicly accusing them of "cowardice" and "weakness," in publicly questioning their motives, etc.) who are functioning in their priesthood capacity, and who choose to take time to consider the momentous issue before them, and who also choose to not feed into a media circus taking place in the parking lot of the stake center, and who
• C) do make these libelous statements while conveniently hiding behind an online pseudonym

may need to take a step back and reconsider their words.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited September 11, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Not here.  I didn't know his name until Scott just posted it.  Maybe he uses his irl name elsewhere, but here he posts under a pseudonym. 

(Ha!  I see he's added his name now .....very clever!)

I've had my IRL name posted publicly for many, many years.  It is literally on every single one of my posts.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think

• A) members of the Church who
• B) publicly libel other members of the Church (as in publicly accusing them of "cowardice" and "weakness," in publicly questioning their motives, etc.) who are functioning in their priesthood capacity, and who choose to take time to consider the momentous issue before them, and who also choose to not feed into a media circus taking place in the parking lot of the stake center, and who
• D) do make these libelous statements while conveniently hiding behind an online pseudonym

may need to take a step back and reconsider their words.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

You left off C. 

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't want to get in the middle of all of this name stuff, but just for accuracy's sake, he has posted under his name here in the past.  I've known his name for a while and this is the only message board I post on.

 

This is what appears next to every single one of my posts (emphasis added):

Quote

smac97

• Places Sun, Moon & Stars In The Sky
• 
• Contributor
•  11,752
• 7,483 posts
• Gender:Male
• Interests:My name is Spencer Macdonald

It has been that way for many, many years.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I've had my IRL name posted publicly for many, many years.  It is literally on every single one of my posts.

Thanks,

-Smac

My apologies....I've honestly never noticed!  Shows how much I read anything other than what is actually in the post!

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not everyone here uses cover of anonymity when posting accusations of cowardice against priesthood leaders who are performing their duty in humility and prudence. As I said, I find the irony rich. You can take me at my word (attested to with my real name). 

You avoided the question. Do you feel that all people who post with a pseudonym are cowards, or just those who voice opposition/discontent with the way church leaders are behaving in this situation?

Quote

And your public slanders continue.  Now you presume to judge the stake president's motives, eh?  And you do so while hiding behind an online pseudonym.

-Smac

This entire line of conversation is speculation about why the SP is waiting 3 days (or however long) to announce his decision. I too, am speculating.

Your efforts to coerce me into giving my real name won't work. Why? Because I don't trust some members of this board to behave responsibly. I've been targeted before when I used my real name and it is prudence not to risk it. But again, a huge difference is that I'm sharing an opinion. The SP is taking action the effects a person's church membership, rescinds all saving ordinances that are required for eternal life. I don't see how postponing the decision helps Sam Young. It only seems to benefit the SP and the church, leading me to believe that the decision is based on what they believe is best for themselves, not Sam. When the stakes are this high (much higher than someone posting on a discussion board under a pseudonym) I find the behavior to be unbecoming of someone claiming to do the will of God.

[ksfisher]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

The SP is taking action the effects a person's church membership, rescinds all saving ordinances that are required for eternal life. I don't see how postponing the decision helps Sam Young. It only seems to benefit the SP and the church, leading me to believe that the decision is based on what they believe is best for themselves, not Sam. When the stakes are this high (much higher than someone posting on a discussion board under a pseudonym) I find the behavior to be unbecoming of someone claiming to do the will of God.

Not knowing the reason the the delay you're making a lot of assumptions here and coming off as very judgmental.

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think

• A) members of the Church who
• B) publicly libel other members of the Church (as in publicly accusing them of "cowardice" and "weakness," in publicly questioning their motives, etc.) who are functioning in their priesthood capacity, and who choose to take time to consider the momentous issue before them, and who also choose to not feed into a media circus taking place in the parking lot of the stake center, and who
• C) do make these libelous statements while conveniently hiding behind an online pseudonym

may need to take a step back and reconsider their words.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

You qualify your comment very well so that it only applies to me in this situation. You are welcome to your opinion.

Your ploy about the pseudonym is transparent so I won't engage any further after saying, that there are many on this board who use pseudonyms and I believe some of those have "libeled" members of the church, Denson, Young, Dehlin, Reel Etc. Unless libel is proven, it is merely in the eyes of the beholder. So if something negative is said about another member by someone using a pseudonym, you seem to discount that. I think I'll just stick to my first name. Hopefully you are consistent and discount it for everyone in every instance. This is silly. You have my opinion. I have yours. I'm out.

Edited September 11, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[Scott Lloyd]

36 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Not here.  I didn't know his name until Scott just posted it.  Maybe he uses his irl name elsewhere, but here he posts under a pseudonym. 

(Ha!  I see he's added his name now .....very clever!)

So — the fact that you never noticed it until now means he never posted it until now? 

This reminds me of those who, having only now learned that Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage, claim the Church kept it hidden all the while. 

There must be a name for this fallacy in human reasoning. For now, I’ll just call it The I-didn’t-know-about-it-before-therefore-it-never-happened-before fallacy. 

Edited September 11, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You avoided the question. Do you feel that all people who post with a pseudonym are cowards, or just those who voice opposition/discontent with the way church leaders are behaving in this situation?

This entire line of conversation is speculation about why the SP is waiting 3 days (or however long) to announce his decision. I too, am speculating.

Your efforts to coerce me into giving my real name won't work. Why? Because I don't trust some members of this board to behave responsibly. I've been targeted before when I used my real name and it is prudence not to risk it. But again, a huge difference is that I'm sharing an opinion. The SP is taking action the effects a person's church membership, rescinds all saving ordinances that are required for eternal life. I don't see how postponing the decision helps Sam Young. It only seems to benefit the SP and the church, leading me to believe that the decision is based on what they believe is best for themselves, not Sam. When the stakes are this high (much higher than someone posting on a discussion board under a pseudonym) I find the behavior to be unbecoming of someone claiming to do the will of God.

I didn’t avoid the question. My answer was in my first post and repeated in my second. Here it is again: I see rich irony in making accusations of cowardice while doing so under cover of a pseudonym. 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You qualify your comment very well so that it only applies to me in this situation.

Yes.

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Your ploy about the pseudonym is transparent so I won't engage any further after saying, that there are many on this board who use pseudonyms and I believe some of those have "libeled" members of the church, Denson, Young, Dehlin, Reel Etc. Unless libel is proven, it is merely in the eyes of the beholder.

You publicly accusing other members of the Church of cowardice will be seen as non-libelous?  By whom?

And you are . . . a bishop in the Church?

And you are accusing others of cowardice while hiding behind a pseudonymn?

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So if something negative is said about another member by someone using a pseudonym, you seem to discount that.

I'm noting the irony of you publicly accusing others of cowardice for behavior that is demonstrably wise and prudent, and of you making these defamatory statements regarding the cowardice of others . . . while you hide behind an online pseudonym.

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think I'll just stick to my first name. Hopefully you are consistent and discount it for everyone in every instance. This is silly. You have my opinion. I have yours. I'm out.

Okay.

-Smac

[rockpond]

We've talked a lot about what didn't happen.  Anyone know what did happen with the "mob" and "media circus"...

...when Young walked out of the stake center without a decision having been communicated?

...when members of the SP/HC walked out of the stake center?