Former Bishop Hunger Strike for Youth Interview Policy Change

[smac97]

54 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?

I am not accusing anyone of cowardice.  You are.

What I have done is note the irony of you publicly accusing others of cowardice while you hide behind an online pseudonym.

And you claim to be a bishop in the Church, no less.  Wow.

Quote

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.

Speculating by defaming men you have never met, for doing things you have done.  And you are doing these things while hiding behind an online pseudonym.

Quote

Your efforts to coerce me into giving my real name won't work.

I have made no such efforts.

Quote

Why? Because I don't trust some members of this board to behave responsibly.

I understand.  

There are some real dangers in hiding behind a pseudonym.  The "Online Disinhibition Effect" really comes into play:

Quote

Online disinhibition is the lack of restraint one feels when communicating online in comparison to communicating in-person.^[1] Possible influencing factors toward online disinhibition include anonymity, invisibility, asynchronous communication, empathy deficit, in addition to individual factors like personality and culture background.^[2][3][4] The manifestations of such effect could be in both positive and negative directions. Thus online disinhibition could be classified as benign disinhibition or toxic disinhibition.

For example, on this board we have a member of the Church who represents himself as a bishop, and who is publicly - and baselessly - libeling other local leaders of the Church.  He has never met these other men.  And although he says he has participated in many disciplinary councils himself, he nevertheless publicly faults these men for fulfilling their priesthood responsibilities in similar ways.  He has publicly accused a stake president - whom, again, he has never met - of being "weak" and "cowardly" because the SP chose to hold off on making an immediate decision on a disciplinary proceeding, the subject of which proceeding had orchestrated a media circus in the parking lot of the stake center, with a gaggle of protesters to boot.  

He has gone on to further disparage the stake president by baselessly impugning the SP's motives, suggesting that the SP is not really interested in the welfare of Sam Young.

And he has done all these things while hiding behind a pseudonym.

And again, he presents himself as a bishop in the Church.

The irony here is . . . strong.

Quote

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.

Ah.  So libels against people you've never met, for doing things you yourself have done, is okey dokey because it's just "sharing an opinion."

I see.

Quote

The SP is taking action the effects a person's church membership, rescinds all saving ordinances that are required for eternal life.

You have also taken such actions, have you not?  Isn't that part of the gig of being a "bishop," as you claim to be?  Haven't you repeatedly stated that you have participated in disciplinary councils yourself?

Quote

I don't see how postponing the decision helps Sam Young.

And because you personally "don't see" this (even though you have no stewardship in the matter, have not participated in any of the disciplinary proceedings, have no right to receive inspiration as to how to proceed, etc.), that justifies you in publicly libeling the stake president by accusing him of being "weak" and "cowardly?"  You are justified in impugning the stake president's motives by implying he is not concerned with Sam Young's welfare?

I invite you to reconsider these things.

Quote

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.

Is it as unbecoming as a "bishop" hiding behind a pseudonym while publicly defaming a stake president he has never met?

🤨

-Smac

Edited September 11, 2018 by smac97

[Hestia]

Things are becoming personal.  The personal accusations need to stop and posters need to stick to the topic of the thread, or people will start getting banned.

[ERMD]

2 hours 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.

The decision of a disciplinary council is most definitely NOT "eternal judgement."  

 

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, ERMD said:

The decision of a disciplinary council is most definitely NOT "eternal judgement."  

Indeed.  Avraham Gileadi and Helmuth Hübener are two examples of "wrongful" excommunications.  Their eternal disposition was never imperiled, IMO.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

A propos of nothing, this made me laugh:

Edited September 11, 2018 by jkwilliams

[bluebell]

31 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

A propos of nothing, this made me laugh:

[ERMD]

40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Indeed.  Avraham Gileadi and Helmuth Hübener are two examples of "wrongful" excommunications.  Their eternal disposition was never imperiled, IMO.

Thanks,

-Smac

The individual can also repent and reclaim his/her blessings.

[Calm]

sorry...off topic

Edited September 11, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

A news item that came out today (9/12):

Quote

SALT LAKE CITY –  A Mormon man facing church discipline for his public opposition to closed-door, one-on-one interviews of youth said Monday he thinks he might have helped his chances slightly during a disciplinary hearing but not enough to stave off excommunication.

Sam Young, 65, said local church leaders in Houston who held the Sunday night hearing told him they’ll be sending their decision by mail in the coming days. They told him he’s accused of apostasy, which refers to teaching inaccurate doctrine or publicly defying guidance from leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Young joked in a phone interview that his chances doubled from “one in a million” to “two in a million” following a 90-minute hearing in which he and his wife spoke after hearing the evidence against him, much of which was writings from his blog. He said they asked him if he believed the church was the one true church, if he believed in the law of chastity and why he wanted to still belong to the faith.

Hard to say what "joking" means in this context.  Gallows humor?  Or simple contempt and disregard for the meaning of membership in the Church?

Quote

Young said he told a panel of 15 men that he has always been confused by the “one true church” description but that he very much believes in the law of chastity.

Hmm.  Sounds like he views the Church is more of a social club or generic civic organization than what it claims to be.  That is not grounds for excommunication, I think.  Plenty of members of the Church struggle at times with the Church's exclusivistic truth claims, and that is understandable.  Those claims are quite bold.  However, I think lacking a testimony of the Restoration (the "one true church" concept being fairly central to that) perhaps illuminates how and why Sam Young has placed himself crosswise from the Church.

Quote

He said he wants to stay in the church because he has put his heart and soul into the faith and because his wife and six adult daughters are members.

Well, he has that option.

Quote

But he made clear he won’t back down from what he believes is a campaign to protect children.

I've become less persuaded about this.  His behavior has been so contrary, so over-the-top, so counter-productive, that I think his "campaign" is more about him and his ego, and the pandering he's received from social media and news media. 

Quote

“If you choose to excommunicate, the world will not only see what Mormons do to their own children, but they will also see how we treat those who speak up to protect our little ones,” Young said according to prepared remarks he shared. “That is the choice that this council comes down to: Protect the leaders or protect the children.”

Hmm.  Threats.  Threats of what he will do and say if they dare oppose him.

These are not the remarks of a person desiring a healthy and constructive relationship with the Church.  Instead, these are the remarks of a person pre-positioning gas tanks and matches under the bridges he plans to burn.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Gray]

Doctrine and Covenants 68:22-23

22 And again, no bishop or high priest who shall be set apart for this ministry shall be tried or condemned for any crime, save it be before the First Presidency of the church; 23 And inasmuch as he is found guilty before this Presidency, by testimony that cannot be impeached, he shall be condemned;

 

Another one to add to the list of ignored D&C commandments.

Edited September 12, 2018 by Gray

[Gray]

Here's a great analysis of youth interview policy from the perspective of risk management:

 

https://wheatandtares.org/2018/09/11/protect-the-children-risk-analysis/

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

Here's a great analysis of youth interview policy from the perspective of risk management:

 

https://wheatandtares.org/2018/09/11/protect-the-children-risk-analysis/

Great post.  I especially liked this (bold added by me):

"Explicitly allowing a child to invite a second adult into the room if they wish is an improvement over the previous policy, which made no mention of this allowance. The question is, does this new policy effectively mitigate the risk of sexual misconduct during priesthood interviews? Having a second adult in the room is a pretty good deterrent against sexual misconduct. However, this control works only when the child thinks to invite a second adult. Because of the non-mandatory nature of this policy, in my opinion, it does little to mitigate the risk of sexual misconduct. In the previous example, our diamond business requires dual control; voluntary dual control would rarely catch theft. (“You only need to accompany another employee to the safe if you don’t trust them of have a bad feeling about them going alone.”)

"This policy doesn’t go far enough because it does nothing to overcome years of cultural bias that have lulled parents (myself included) into thinking it ok for an adult to take a child alone behind closed doors. As Peter Drucker may have said, “Culture eats strategy for breakfast.” [3] Or in other words, the new policy is unlikely to do any good because the current culture of trusting our leaders will easily counteract the benefits that may have come from the new policy. (“My bishop is a good man. I don’t need to worry about an interview with him.”)

"I predict there will be more adoption of calling ourselves members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints than there will be of youth insisting on having a second adult attend interviews with them. This name-change effort, though in my mind foolhardy, at least has the support from on high to make members want to alter their culture. Imagine if this new interview policy had been rolled out with President Nelson saying, “The Lord has impressed upon my mind the importance of protecting our children. We have to work to bring ourselves in harmony with His will. We should encourage children, youth, or women [4] to invite another adult to be present for their interviews with leaders if they so desire. Additional training on this important topic will be shared with leaders at all levels and discussed during combined Priesthood and Relief Society meeting next month which will include the youth.”

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, Gray said:

Doctrine and Covenants 68:22-23

22 And again, no bishop or high priest who shall be set apart for this ministry shall be tried or condemned for any crime, save it be before the First Presidency of the church; 23 And inasmuch as he is found guilty before this Presidency, by testimony that cannot be impeached, he shall be condemned;

 

Another one to add to the list of ignored D&C commandments.

I am curious as to your exegesis of the bolded part here: "And again, no bishop or high priest who shall be set apart for this ministry shall be tried or condemned for any crime, save it be before the First Presidency of the church..."

Verse 14 speaks of "other bishops to be set apart unto the church, to minister..."  The subsequent verses clarify that worthy high priests can be appointed in the absence of a demonstrated descendant of Aaron (as is the case throughout the entirety of the Church, at least at present).   Verse 22 then speaks of a "bishop or high priest."  I think the reference to "bishop" here means a qualified descendant of Aaron who holds the office by legal right, and the reference to "high priest" means a worthy high priest functioning as a bishop (set apart and functioning as such - "set apart for this ministry") in the absence of a qualified descendant of Aaron.

In other words, it appears that people who must be tried by the First Presidency include A) qualified descendants of Aaron who have claimed the office of bishop by legal right, or B) high priests currently functioning and set apart as bishops.

To my knowledge, the Church has yet to see anyone fitting Category A.  We have not had any qualified descendants of Aaron who have claimed the office of bishop by legal right.  Moreover, Sam Young does not fit within this category, as he has never claimed to be a descendant of Aaron.  

As for Category B, that doesn't apply to Sam Young, since he is not "set apart for this ministry" as required by verse 22.  

As I see it, verse 22 presently does not have much utility in the Church.  We don't have any "Category A" people, and a "Category B" person meaningfully accused of misconduct would almost certainly be released from his calling, and any subsequent disciplinary proceeding would not need to be before the First Presidency because he is no longer "set apart for this ministry." 

There could have been times in the early days of the Church when a functioning, set-apart bishop was tried by the First Presidency.  I would be interested in any historical references about that.  And there are theoretical circumstances in which a functioning, set-apart bishop could be tried by the First Presidency (unlikely, but who knows?).  And if and when the Church experiences a qualified descendant of Aaron who has claimed the office of bishop by legal right, I think such a person would necessarily need to be tried for misconduct by the First Presidency.  We'll have to wait and see.

What are your thoughts here?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 12, 2018 by smac97

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am curious as to your exegesis of the bolded part here: "And again, no bishop or high priest who shall be set apart for this ministry shall be tried or condemned for any crime, save it be before the First Presidency of the church..."

Verse 14 speaks of "other bishops to be set apart unto the church, to minister..."  The subsequent verses clarify that worthy high priests can be appointed in the absence of a demonstrated descendant of Aaron (as is the case throughout the entirety of the Church, at least at present).   Verse 22 then speaks of a "bishop or high priest."  I think the reference to "bishop" here means a qualified descendant of Aaron who holds the office by legal right, and the reference to "high priest" means a worthy high priest functioning as a bishop (set apart and functioning as such - "set apart for this ministry") in the absence of a qualified descendant of Aaron.

In other words, it appears that people who must be tried by the First Presidency include A) qualified descendants of Aaron who have claimed the office of bishop by legal right, or B) high priests currently functioning as and set apart as bishops.

To my knowledge, the Church has yet to see anyone fitting Category A.  We have not had any qualified descendants of Aaron who have claimed the office of bishop by legal right.  Moreover, Sam Young does not fit within this category, as he has never claimed to be a descendant of Aaron.  

As for Category B, that doesn't apply to Sam Young, since he is not "set apart for this ministry" as required by verse 22.  

As I see it, verse 22 presently does not have much utility in the Church.  We don't have any "Category A" people, and a "Category B" person meaningfully accused of misconduct would almost certainly be released from his calling, and any subsequent disciplinary proceeding would not need to be before the First Presidency because he is no longer "set apart for this ministry." 

There could have been times in the early days of the Church when a functioning, set-apart bishop was tried by the First Presidency.  I would be interested in any historical references about that.  And there are theoretical circumstances in which a functioning, set-apart bishop could be tried by the First Presidency (unlikely, but who knows?).  And if and when the Church experiences a qualified descendant of Aaron who has claimed the office of bishop by legal right, I think such a person would necessarily need to be tried for misconduct by the First Presidency.  We'll have to wait and see.

What are your thoughts here?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Sam Young was set apart for the ministry, but beyond that, he is also a current high priest. According to this any high priest must be tried by the first presidency.

The idea of a bishop being a direct descendant of Aaron (or else a high priest if not of the line of Aaron) is a fun topic, but off-topic here.

Edited September 12, 2018 by Gray

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

 

Sam Young was set apart for the ministry, but beyond that, he is also a current high priest. According to this any high priest must be tried by the first presidency.

The idea of a bishop being a direct descendant of Aaron (or else a high priest if not of the line of Aaron) is a fun topic, but off-topic here.

Section 68 (the heading) states that the section is talking about the calling of Presiding bishop.   You're not interpreting that section the way the church interprets it.

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Section 68 (the heading) states that the section is talking about the calling of Presiding bishop.   You're not interpreting that section the way the church interprets it.

The text says nothing about presiding bishops. Regardless, I think you may be misinterpreting the heading as well.

Quote

 Presiding Bishop (that is, hold the keys of presidency as a bishop)

In other words, a bishop.

In any case, Young is also a high priest, so your objection is moot regardless.

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Gray said:

Here's a great analysis of youth interview policy from the perspective of risk management:

 

https://wheatandtares.org/2018/09/11/protect-the-children-risk-analysis/

From the article:

Quote

First let’s assess the risk of one-on-one interviews. How likely is it that, without any controls, sexual misconduct would occur as a result of priesthood interviews? I’m sure that some department somewhere in the Church Office Building has the statistics needed to answer this question precisely, but based on my anecdotal information (i.e., my interactions with bishops as well as my wife’s), I’m going to guess that it’s very unlikely. However, given the instructions for prospective missionary worthiness interviews made public by MormonLeaks–“Worthiness interviews need to be specific and explicit (e.g., not just, ‘Do you live the law of chastity?’).”–I fear that the true answer may only be unlikely instead of very unlikely.

Meh.  Missionary interviews are far more in-depth than semi-annual interviews for youth.

Quote

On most conservative risk assessment matrices, a risk with possible severe consequences, even consequences that are very unlikely, would be rated at least a moderate risk, if not a high risk. Given the potential for harm to a child, the risk of interviews between adults and children should be considered high.

Huh?  How is "the potential for harm to a child" a "given?"

Not really buying into this reasoning.

Quote

As Christ warned, “If anyone causes one of these little ones–those who believe in me–to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” (Matt 18:6 NIV) The risk isn’t just for the irreparable harm to a child; there is risk to the soul of the adult leader who harms the child. Surely this is a risk deserving of strong preventative controls.

Sure.  Like the controls the Church has in place.

Quote

Next let’s assess the strength of the controls the church has implemented.

...

Explicitly allowing a child to invite a second adult into the room if they wish is an improvement over the previous policy, which made no mention of this allowance. The question is, does this new policy effectively mitigate the risk of sexual misconduct during priesthood interviews?

Um, how does one propose to measure "effective mitigation?"  What does that even mean?  What level of mitigation is sufficient to be "effective?"  And who gets to make that call for the entire Church?  Sam Young?  I think not.

Quote

Having a second adult in the room is a pretty good deterrent against sexual misconduct.

But it also introduces other problems. 

What if the child/youth is less forthcoming because of the presence of the second adult?

What if the child/youth confesses to serious misconduct and the second adult blabs about it?

What if the child/youth confesses to serious misconduct and the priest/penitent privilege is undermined by the presence of the second adult?

What if the child/youth is being abused by a parent, which parent is the second adult in the room?

And so on.

Quote

However, this control works only when the child thinks to invite a second adult.

Or when the parent asks to attend.  Or the bishop notifies the child and parents of the changed policy and invites the child and parents to make an informed decision.

The author here seems to be setting up a bit of a strawman here.

Quote

Because of the non-mandatory nature of this policy, in my opinion, it does little to mitigate the risk of sexual misconduct.

Yep.  Strawman.

Quote

This policy doesn’t go far enough because it does nothing to overcome years of cultural bias that have lulled parents (myself included) into thinking it ok for an adult to take a child alone behind closed doors.

Oh, brother.  This person is saying he has been "lulled" into being unaware of the changed policy that he is presently writing about?

Quote

As Peter Drucker may have said, “Culture eats strategy for breakfast.” [3] Or in other words, the new policy is unlikely to do any good because the current culture of trusting our leaders will easily counteract the benefits that may have come from the new policy. (“My bishop is a good man. I don’t need to worry about an interview with him.”)

Yep.  Strawman.

Quote

I predict there will be more adoption of calling ourselves members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints than there will be of youth insisting on having a second adult attend interviews with them.

So because some people might choose differently than the writer, we all need to kowtow to Sam Young's demands for the entirety of the Church?

Quote

This name-change effort, though in my mind foolhardy, at least has the support from on high to make members want to alter their culture.

Publicly characterizing inspired counsel from President Nelson as "foolhardy" only lessens my estimation of the writer.

Quote

Imagine if this new interview policy had been rolled out with President Nelson saying, “The Lord has impressed upon my mind the importance of protecting our children. We have to work to bring ourselves in harmony with His will. We should encourage children, youth, or women [4] to invite another adult to be present for their interviews with leaders if they so desire. Additional training on this important topic will be shared with leaders at all levels and discussed during combined Priesthood and Relief Society meeting next month which will include the youth.”

Second-guessing.  Armchair quarterbacking.  

And the writer is advocating for Sam Young, who would still not be satisfied, even with this "imagine{d}" rollout.

Quote

Protect the Children is advocating for no more one-on-one interviews between adult leaders and children, as well as an end to all sexual questions. This would not completely mitigate the risk of sexual misconduct, but the residual risk would be very small, much smaller than it is under the current optional dual-adult policy. I think making mandatory the presence of two adults during all interviews with youth is non-negotiable in order to have an effective control during interviews.

I disagree.  I think the current policy is quite good.  

Quote

Many online discussions about Protect the Children, even some that concede the need for mandatory presence of two adults during interviews, argue that the church needs to continue asking sexual worthiness questions to understand adherence to the law of chastity. Why the church needs to know more than a simple yes or no to the question of “Do you live the law of chastity?” is beyond me, but assuming the general church leaders feel that this change is a road too far, how could they design an effective control that allows this questioning to continue?

I think there are children who simply may not understand the question.  They may not know what the Law of Chastity is, or what it means to live by it.  For example, is looking at pornography a violation of the law of chastity?  If a child/youth is looking at porn, do they understand that this is wrong?

I think bishops should be given further training on this how and when additional questions beyond "Do you live the law of chastity" may be appropriate.

Quote

Remembering that two adults present during interviews is non-negotiable, the risk of sexual misconduct could be mitigated if leaders received better training.

I disagree about the non-negotiable bit, but more and better training would be good.

Quote

Leaders who conduct interviews should have to complete several hours of interactive training. Such training could include videos blended with online assessments instructing leaders what questions are or are not appropriate when conducting an interview, and then take the leaders through various scenarios of how to (and how not to) handle sticky sexual subjects.

I agree in the abstract.

Quote

Furthermore, this training should be made accessible to all members of the church, not just leaders. If all members have been trained, when they act as second adult during an interview with a minor, they will recognize (and hopefully put a stop to) any discussion that is veering inappropriate.

I would be okay with that.

Quote

Again, remembering that two adults present during interviews is non-negotiable, the risk of sexual misconduct could be further mitigated if leaders at all levels did a better job of discouraging leader worship. [6] Leader worship creates a perfect environment for sexual predators. A critical aspect of grooming is developing a relationship of trust with the intended victim. They also work to gain the trust of the child’s parents in an effort to short-circuit doubts or concerns the parents may have. Leader worship teaches children an unwarranted sense of trust in the adults around them; it teaches them to trust men, not because the trust was earned, but because of a title or position. We need more General Conference talks that admit leaders are just good men who make mistakes sometimes. We need more fourth Sunday discussions about mistakes that leaders have made.

This is a fair point

Quote

Other controls could add more layers of protection (e.g., background checks for any leader who works with youth, add windows to the bishops office)

Perhaps closed-circuit cameras would help as well.

Quote

but in the end, mandatory two-deep adult presence during interviews,

I disagree with this one.

Quote

better training, and quashing the culture of leader worship would go a long way to building effective controls to combat sexual misconduct in interviews.

I agree with these.

Quote

And by removing interviews as an opportunity for grooming our youth, it would likely lead to a reduction in sexual abuse by Mormon leaders in non-interview venues.

I think the "[bishop] interviews as an opportunity for grooming our youth" thing is bordering on a hysteria or moral panic, one that has been fabricated and sensationalized by Sam Young.  I am not persuaded that he is operating in good faith.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There could have been times in the early days of the Church when a functioning, set-apart bishop was tried by the First Presidency.  I would be interested in any historical references about that. 

We have to keep in mind that the D&C sections from the Kirtland and Missouri periods (and Nauvoo as well) were dealing with one or two stakes. The only two bishops referenced are Edward Partridge and Newel K. Whitney. The Church was . . . small then. When it references the "traveling high council," it is talking about the apostles. Later growth led to "standing high councils" (stake), etc. bluebell is exactly right that it is referring to the presiding bishop (as clarified in the heading). At the time it was written, there was only one bishop in the Church at all. References to stake presidencies referred to the First Presidency, because the Church was only one or two stakes. Later, "standing" stake presidencies became the "presidency of the high priesthood" in their stakes. 

For Gray's eisegesis to be correct, there would have to be a huge conspiracy of silence throughout the years on the part of men who read and are well aware of everything in the D&C. Does he think that all of these men over the years have been completely unaware of what he pointed out, *or* that they are studiously ignoring it? It applies to the presiding bishop, and of course he would be tried by the First Presidency. He is a general authority. 

 

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, Gray said:

Sam Young was set apart for the ministry,

And then he was released from that setting apart.

A former bishop is not the same as a set-apart bishop.  A former bishop cannot preside in meetings, cannot receive tithes and offerings, cannot conduct temple recommend and other bishop interviews, cannot conduct disciplinary councils, cannot authorize distribution of fast offerings and other church resources, cannot officiate in weddings, cannot extend callings and releases, cannot set apart other members of the ward, and so on.

In short, a former bishop is no longer "set apart for this ministry."

30 minutes ago, Gray said:

but beyond that, he is also a current high priest.

But not a high priest "set apart for this ministry [of acting in the office of bishop]."  Verse 22 must be read in its entirety, don't you think?  You previously made this sarcastic remark: "Another one to add to the list of ignored D&C commandments."  But here you are, "ignor[ing]" a key provision of verse 22.

30 minutes ago, Gray said:

According to this any high priest must be tried by the first presidency.

I don't think that is correct.  Verse 22 states that "no bishop or high priest who shall be set apart for this ministry shall be tried or condemned for any crime, save it be before the First Presidency of the church."

Context matters.  "Who shall be set apart for this ministry" matters.

30 minutes ago, Gray said:

The idea of a bishop being a direct descendant of Aaron (or else a high priest if not of the line of Aaron) is a fun topic, but off-topic here.

Not really.  It's part of verse 22.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

Just now, smac97 said:

And then he was released from that setting apart.

A former bishop is not the same as a set-apart bishop.  A former bishop cannot preside in meetings, cannot receive tithes and offerings, cannot conduct temple recommend and other bishop interviews, cannot conduct disciplinary councils, cannot authorize distribution of fast offerings and other church resources, cannot officiate in weddings, cannot extend callings and releases, cannot set apart other members of the ward, and so on.

In short, a former bishop is no longer "set apart for this ministry."

But not a high priest "set apart for this ministry [of acting in the office of bishop]."  Verse 22 must be read in its entirety, don't you think?  You previously made this sarcastic remark: "Another one to add to the list of ignored D&C commandments."  But here you are, "ignor[ing]" a key provision of verse 22.

I don't think that is correct.  Verse 22 states that "no bishop or high priest who shall be set apart for this ministry shall be tried or condemned for any crime, save it be before the First Presidency of the church."

Context matters.  "Who shall be set apart for this ministry" matters.

Not really.  It's part of verse 22.

These are all very good points. I wonder what Gray's response to this is?

[smac97]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

We have to keep in mind that the D&C sections from the Kirtland and Missouri periods (and Nauvoo as well) were dealing with one or two stakes. The only two bishops referenced are Edward Partridge and Newel K. Whitney. The Church was . . . small then. When it references the "traveling high council," it is talking about the apostles. Later growth led to "standing high councils" (stake), etc. bluebell is exactly right that it is referring to the presiding bishop (as clarified in the heading).

She may well be right, and that construction would apparently supersede mine.

1 minute ago, rongo said:

At the time it was written, there was only one bishop in the Church at all. References to stake presidencies referred to the First Presidency, because the Church was only one or two stakes. Later, "standing" stake presidencies became the "presidency of the high priesthood" in their stakes. 

For Gray's eisegesis to be correct, there would have to be a huge conspiracy of silence throughout the years on the part of men who read and are well aware of everything in the D&C. Does he think that all of these men over the years have been completely unaware of what he pointed out, *or* that they are studiously ignoring it? It applies to the presiding bishop, and of course he would be tried by the First Presidency. He is a general authority. 

Interesting stuff.  I appreciate your (and Bluebell's) thoughts.

I also appreciate Gray's point of view, though I disagree with it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

And then he was released from that setting apart.

A former bishop is not the same as a set-apart bishop.  A former bishop cannot preside in meetings, cannot receive tithes and offerings, cannot conduct temple recommend and other bishop interviews, cannot conduct disciplinary councils, cannot authorize distribution of fast offerings and other church resources, cannot officiate in weddings, cannot extend callings and releases, cannot set apart other members of the ward, and so on.

In short, a former bishop is no longer "set apart for this ministry."

But not a high priest "set apart for this ministry [of acting in the office of bishop]."  Verse 22 must be read in its entirety, don't you think?  You previously made this sarcastic remark: "Another one to add to the list of ignored D&C commandments."  But here you are, "ignor[ing]" a key provision of verse 22.

I don't think that is correct.  Verse 22 states that "no bishop or high priest who shall be set apart for this ministry shall be tried or condemned for any crime, save it be before the First Presidency of the church."

Context matters.  "Who shall be set apart for this ministry" matters.

Not really.  It's part of verse 22.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

IIRC "setting apart" and "Ordain" were used sometimes used interchangeably in the early days of the church. While I accept that the church has redefined "bishop" to mean "presiding bishop", based on growth and the way they interpret the original intent, I also think that in their minds there was probably very little difference between ordain and set apart. Times have changed so we view them differently now, but I'm not sure it was so clear back then. In any case, the language from the 1830's is being interpreted for today's use and it doesn't always match perfectly.

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, Gray said:

The text says nothing about presiding bishops. Regardless, I think you may be misinterpreting the heading as well.

In other words, a bishop.

In any case, Young is also a high priest, so your objection is moot regardless.

Bluebell pointed out that you are not interpreting the section in the way the Church interprets it, a statement that is quite true. Is there any reason one should privilege your interpretation over that of the Church?

Edited September 12, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[ksfisher]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

From the article:

Meh.  Missionary interviews are far more in-depth than semi-annual interviews for youth.

Huh?  How is "the potential for harm to a child" a "given?"

Not really buying into this reasoning.

Sure.  Like the controls the Church has in place.

Um, how does one propose to measure "effective mitigation?"  What does that even mean?  What level of mitigation is sufficient to be "effective?"  And who gets to make that call for the entire Church?  Sam Young?  I think not.

But it also introduces other problems. 

What if the child/youth is less forthcoming because of the presence of the second adult?

What if the child/youth confesses to serious misconduct and the second adult blabs about it?

What if the child/youth confesses to serious misconduct and the priest/penitent privilege is undermined by the presence of the second adult?

What if the child/youth is being abused by a parent, which parent is the second adult in the room?

And so on.

Or when the parent asks to attend.  Or the bishop notifies the child and parents of the changed policy and invites the child and parents to make an informed decision.

The author here seems to be setting up a bit of a strawman here.

Yep.  Strawman.

Oh, brother.  This person is saying he has been "lulled" into being unaware of the changed policy that he is presently writing about?

Yep.  Strawman.

So because some people might choose differently than the writer, we all need to kowtow to Sam Young's demands for the entirety of the Church?

Publicly characterizing inspired counsel from President Nelson as "foolhardy" only lessens my estimation of the writer.

Second-guessing.  Armchair quarterbacking.  

And the writer is advocating for Sam Young, who would still not be satisfied, even with this "imagine{d}" rollout.

I disagree.  I think the current policy is quite good.  

I think there are children who simply may not understand the question.  They may not know what the Law of Chastity is, or what it means to live by it.  For example, is looking at pornography a violation of the law of chastity?  If a child/youth is looking at porn, do they understand that this is wrong?

I think bishops should be given further training on this how and when additional questions beyond "Do you live the law of chastity" may be appropriate.

I disagree about the non-negotiable bit, but more and better training would be good.

I agree in the abstract.

I would be okay with that.

This is a fair point

Perhaps closed-circuit cameras would help as well.

I disagree with this one.

I agree with these.

I think the "[bishop] interviews as an opportunity for grooming our youth" thing is bordering on a hysteria or moral panic, one that has been fabricated and sensationalized by Sam Young.  I am not persuaded that he is operating in good faith.

Thanks,

-Smac

The message that I seem to be getting from Sam Young is that "we shouldn't trust bishops, bishops are bad" and that we should be teaching our children not to trust any adults in church.  Seems pretty sad.

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

IIRC "setting apart" and "Ordain" were used sometimes used interchangeably in the early days of the church. While I accept that the church has redefined "bishop" to mean "presiding bishop", based on growth and the way they interpret the original intent, I also think that in their minds there was probably very little difference between ordain and set apart. Times have changed so we view them differently now, but I'm not sure it was so clear back then. In any case, the language from the 1830's is being interpreted for today's use and it doesn't always match perfectly.

You may have a point.  And if so, Gray's point is rebutted.  The Church isn't ignoring D&C 68, it is adapting it to our day and our circumstances.

Thanks,

-Smac