Former Bishop Hunger Strike for Youth Interview Policy Change

[Gray]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

On further consideration, you may be right there. It may only be referring to high priests who have been called to be bishops, and "bishop" may be referring to the mysterious "sons of Aaron" who are apparently automatically bishops (although I'm not aware of this every being implemented).

On the other hand, there is this to consider:

https://www.lds.org/new-era/1980/06/q-and-a-questions-and-answers/do-you-refer-to-a-former-bishop-as-brother-or-as-bishop?lang=eng

 

Quote

The axiom “once a bishop always a bishop” is correct because the office of bishop is an office of ordination conferred by the laying on of hands, the same as the Melchizedek Priesthood office of elder or high priest.

 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

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.

Yep.  Meanwhile, parents are, statistically speaking, far more likely to be perpetrators of sexual abuse than bishops.  So by Sam Young's reasoning (such as it is), we must destroy any trust that children - all children - have in their parents.

And teachers, too.  We can't trust them.  

Sam Young is inciting a moral panic.  That does not mean that abuse does not occur, but Sam Young is being reckless in his rhetoric.  He may end up doing considerably more harm than good (particularly as to his own circumstances).

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

On the other hand, there is this to consider:

The axiom “once a bishop always a bishop” is correct because the office of bishop is an office of ordination conferred by the laying on of hands, the same as the Melchizedek Priesthood office of elder or high priest.

smac's point about non-set apart bishops still applies, though. Once released, you are ordained to that office, but you are no longer set apart and cannot function in it. That has a direct bearing on what you were trying to muster into service to claim that the Church wasn't trying Sam Young properly. By nobody's definition is he "set apart unto this ministry." Like tens of thousands of others, he once was, but hasn't been for some time now. So, even your interpretation of D&C 68 wouldn't apply to him, anyway, even if your interpretation were correct. Or any one of the tens of thousands of released bishops. 

[Scott Lloyd]

32 minutes ago, Gray said:

On further consideration, you may be right there. It may only be referring to high priests who have been called to be bishops, and "bishop" may be referring to the mysterious "sons of Aaron" who are apparently automatically bishops (although I'm not aware of this every being implemented).

On the other hand, there is this to consider:

https://www.lds.org/new-era/1980/06/q-and-a-questions-and-answers/do-you-refer-to-a-former-bishop-as-brother-or-as-bishop?lang=eng

 

 

Only a few bishops at any given time are “set apart” to act in that office. 

[smac97]

38 minutes ago, Gray said:

On further consideration, you may be right there. It may only be referring to high priests who have been called to be bishops, and "bishop" may be referring to the mysterious "sons of Aaron" who are apparently automatically bishops (although I'm not aware of this every being implemented).

On the other hand, there is this to consider:

https://www.lds.org/new-era/1980/06/q-and-a-questions-and-answers/do-you-refer-to-a-former-bishop-as-brother-or-as-bishop?lang=eng

Quote

The axiom “once a bishop always a bishop” is correct because the office of bishop is an office of ordination conferred by the laying on of hands, the same as the Melchizedek Priesthood office of elder or high priest.

 

But "once a bishop, always a bishop" does not mean "once a bishop, always [set apart and functioning as] a bishop."  Again, former bishops cannot exercise any of the authority of that ordination (preside, conduct interviews, etc.), as that ordination becomes dormant once he is released.

Sounds like we are on the same page now.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yep.  Meanwhile, parents are, statistically speaking, far more likely to be perpetrators of sexual abuse than bishops.  So by Sam Young's reasoning (such as it is), we must destroy any trust that children - all children - have in their parents.

And teachers, too.  We can't trust them.  

Sam Young is inciting a moral panic.  That does not mean that abuse does not occur, but Sam Young is being reckless in his rhetoric.  He may end up doing considerably more harm than good (particularly as to his own circumstances).

Thanks,

-Smac

I have my reservations about Young’s approach but having recently had a family get asked inappropriate questions by a student ward bishop at BYU, I also feel that there is reason to take a closer look at the interview process from an institutional level. 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I have my reservations about Young’s approach but having recently had a family get asked inappropriate questions by a student ward bishop at BYU, I also feel that there is reason to take a closer look at the interview process from an institutional level. 

I think the Brethren have done that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But "once a bishop, always a bishop" does not mean "once a bishop, always [set apart and functioning as] a bishop."  Again, former bishops cannot exercise any of the authority of that ordination (preside, conduct interviews, etc.), as that ordination becomes dormant once he is released.

Sounds like we are on the same page now.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm not sure, in historical context, there is much of a distinction to be made between ordination and setting apart. However, it appears to not be as cut and dried as I originally thought. Thanks.

I'd be curious to know if a sitting bishop has ever been excommunicated, and if so, what was the process.

Edited September 12, 2018 by Gray

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'd be curious to know if a sitting bishop has ever been excommunicated, and if so, what was the process.

Oh, yes. I can tell you from experience (not as the excommunicatee, but as the replacement) that it also triggers unwritten sanctions. Rebaptism is not set at a one year minimum, and is subject to First Presidency approval. General authorities monitor the situation (not in imposing the outcome, but they are well apprised of where things stand and what is going on). The DCs are held at the stake level, same as anyone else not a GA. 

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm not sure, in historical context, there is much of a distinction to be made between ordination and setting apart. However, it appears to not be as cut and dried as I originally thought. Thanks.

I'd be curious to know if a sitting bishop has ever been excommunicated, and if so, what was the process.

I really doubt it.  It would seem very likely that a bishop would be released and then disciplined.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ksfisher]

Just now, rongo said:

Oh, yes. I can tell you from experience (not as the excommunicatee, but as the replacement) that it also triggers unwritten sanctions. Rebaptism is not set at a one year minimum, and is subject to First Presidency approval. General authorities monitor the situation (not in imposing the outcome, but they are well apprised of where things stand and what is going on). The DCs are held at the stake level, same as anyone else not a GA. 

Was the bishop currently serving in that office or was he released and then the disciplinary council held?  If that was the case then he would not have been "sitting" as Gray called it.

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I really doubt it.  It would seem very likely that a bishop would be released and then disciplined.

Oh, that's what you guys mean. Yes, they are released first and then disciplined. It all happens so fast that it is practically one and the same with the timing, though. Like, all that very week. 

[bluebell]

2 hours 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.

Again though, that's not how the church interprets that part of section 68.

This is in the Doctrine and Covenants lesson manual concerning these verses-

"Doctrine and Covenants 68:13–24

The Lord reveals that the First Presidency is to oversee the calling of bishops

Ask students to imagine that a friend of another faith asks, “How was your bishop chosen?”

How would you respond?

Explain that Edward Partridge was the first bishop called in the restored Church of Jesus Christ (on February 4, 1831; see D&C 41:9). Before Joseph Smith received the revelation recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 68 (in November 1831), Bishop Partridge was the only bishop in the Church. Other bishops were called shortly after the Prophet received this revelation.

Invite a student to read Doctrine and Covenants 68:14–15 aloud. Ask the class to follow along, looking for how bishops are selected.

Note: Verses 15–20 contain instructions concerning literal descendants of Aaron who may be called as Presiding Bishop. The phrase “literal descendant of Aaron” refers to descendants of Moses’s brother Aaron in the Old Testament. Such a descendant would have a right to the office of Presiding Bishop if he is called and approved by the First Presidency. Verses 16–20 pertain only to the Presiding Bishop, not to bishops of wards (see Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [1954–56], 3:92–93). Early Church literature often referred to Bishop Partridge as the Presiding Bishop. The responsibilities of the Presiding Bishop developed and changed over the next several years. Under the direction of President Brigham Young, the responsibilities of the Presiding Bishop were clarified more fully in 1847 at Winter Quarters, with Bishop Newel K. Whitney receiving that calling.

You may want to explain that in the early days of the Church, members of the First Presidency ordained and set apart all bishops. In the Church today, this is still true for the Presiding Bishop. However, the calling, ordaining, and setting apart of bishops is conducted by stake presidents under the direction of the First Presidency. A stake president, with support from his counselors in the stake presidency, seeks revelation to know when to call a new bishop and whom to call. He sends his recommendation to the First Presidency for approval. When the First Presidency approves the calling, they authorize the stake president to ordain and set apart the new bishop. (For more information, see Handbook 2: Administering the Church [2010], 19.6.)"

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Was the bishop currently serving in that office or was he released and then the disciplinary council held?  If that was the case then he would not have been "sitting" as Gray called it.

Confessed on Tuesday, stake president calls Salt Lake and gets immediate authorization to release (only the First Presidency can call and release bishops) and a special "fast track" authorization to call a new bishop (normally takes 1-2 months), stake president calls and sets up appointment on Saturday with new bishop and his wife, stake president calls counselors Saturday night, and special abrupt Sunday release and sustaining vote. 

Disciplinary council the following Sunday.

Edited September 12, 2018 by rongo

[rongo]

I can also tell you that the interview to replace is . . . much more searching than my first one was. That was by First Presidency instruction (per the stake president). Under the circumstances, I can understand that. 

We assumed it was for a stake auxiliary or maybe high council, but when he excused my wife to meet privately with me first, we both thought, "Uh, oh."  

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

Confessed on Tuesday, stake president calls Salt Lake and gets immediate authorization to release (only the First Presidency can call and release bishops) and a special "fast track" authorization to call a new bishop (normally takes 1-2 months), stake president calls and sets up appointment on Saturday with new bishop and his wife, stake president calls counselors Saturday night, and special abrupt Sunday release and sustaining vote. 

Disciplinary council the following Sunday.

That's the process I'm familiar with.  Before a disciplinary council is held the person is released from their calling.

[Avatar4321]

3 hours 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.

He isn’t serving as a bishop...

[smac97]

On 9/12/2018 at 10:32 AM, rongo said:

Oh, that's what you guys mean. Yes, they are released first and then disciplined. It all happens so fast that it is practically one and the same with the timing, though. Like, all that very week. 

In some circumstances, yes.  Look at what happened to Philander Smartt.

Usually, however, disciplinary councils needn't be rushed.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 14, 2018 by smac97

[Kenngo1969]

On 9/12/2018 at 10:59 AM, smac97 said:

In some circumstances, yes.  Look at what happened to Philander Knox.

Usually, however, disciplinary councils needn't be rushed.

Thanks,

-Smac

To be precise, the [Ahem!] gentleman's full name is Philander[er?] Knox [Not-So] Smartt, III.  (And speaking of rapid, emergency releases and calling of replacements for bishops, how about the same process for a mission president?     Thank God for the willingness and ability of Elder Zwick and his family to respond on such short notice to that call!) 

Edited September 14, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[HappyJackWagon]

The Disciplinary Council for Sam Young was held Sunday 9/9/18 and as of Thursday night 9/13/18 he has not been informed of whether or not he will be stripped of his baptism, priesthood, sealing, and membership. No rush. It's not like those things carry any eternal import. I'm sure the notice is in the mail. Nothing says love like certified mail  

I wonder what's taking so long. Is the SP having a hard time deciding, or is his decision being questioned by his ecclesiastical superiors, or should we blame the US Postal Service?

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The Disciplinary Council for Sam Young was held Sunday 9/9/18 and as of Thursday night 9/13/18 he has not been informed of whether or not he will be stripped of his baptism, priesthood, sealing, and membership. No rush. It's not like those things carry any eternal import. I'm sure the notice is in the mail. Nothing says love like certified mail  

I wonder what's taking so long. Is the SP having a hard time deciding, or is his decision being questioned by his ecclesiastical superiors, or should we blame the US Postal Service?

I wonder how this is any of our business.

[HappyJackWagon]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I wonder how this is any of our business.

Simple, because it's a public story and many of us care about what happens to Sam Young. We care about how the church treats him and we care about his cause. Sam is sharing his experience and we want to know how it resolves. It's like a friend telling you about something meaningful going on in his life, something stressful, and you hope that he is treated fairly. If Sam chose not to share, it wouldn't be any of my business. But he does share, I care, so it is my business.

If you don't care you could ignore everything having to do with the story.

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The Disciplinary Council for Sam Young was held Sunday 9/9/18 and as of Thursday night 9/13/18 he has not been informed of whether or not he will be stripped of his baptism, priesthood, sealing, and membership. No rush. It's not like those things carry any eternal import. I'm sure the notice is in the mail. Nothing says love like certified mail  

I wonder what's taking so long. Is the SP having a hard time deciding, or is his decision being questioned by his ecclesiastical superiors, or should we blame the US Postal Service?

Patience is a virtue 

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Simple, because it's a public story

No, it's a private story that one participant is publicizing.  The local leaders are not obligated to play along with his efforts.

And c'mon, Sam Young knew exactly what he was doing.  He knew the likely outcome of his course of action.  He actively pursued it.  He made his choice.  He's characterized his retention of membership as being a one or two "in a million" chance.  And we all know his behavior has been incompatible with continuing membership (or at least fellowship) in the Church.  

Mr. Young appears to be in a state of rebellion.  I am saddened by that.  I hope he has a change of heart.

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

and many of us care about what happens to Sam Young.

Funny how nobody seems to have cautioned against pursuing a course of behavior that was obviously incompatible with maintaining a relationship with the Church.

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

We care about how the church treats him and we care about his cause.

It sure would be nice if some of his supporters cared about how he treats the Church.  Which has been pretty abysmal.

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Sam is sharing his experience and we want to know how it resolves.

The local leaders are not obligated to pander to the idle curiosity of third parties.

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's like a friend telling you about something meaningful going on in his life, something stressful, and you hope that he is treated fairly.

There is no question that he has been treated fairly.

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If Sam chose not to share, it wouldn't be any of my business. But he does share, I care, so it is my business.

No, it's not.  

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If you don't care you could ignore everything having to do with the story.

Alas.  The kabuki theater that is Sam Young's behavior is hard to ignore.

Thanks,

-Smac

[changed]

On 9/12/2018 at 10:42 AM, rockpond said:

I have my reservations about Young’s approach ..

Desperate times call for desperate measures.  The "right approach" seems to be - remain silent, ignore, belittle, deny, cover up... that is the approach that was originally taken, what has happened for year and years years, and it did not work.  

Sam started with "the correct" approach, and no one listened.... hundreds of people are sending him abuse stories, he finds himself in the center of emergency situations that require immediate and drastic action - and he was strong enough to stand up and do what needed to be done to raise awareness.  

Examples of what is going around now...

Link - Mormon missionaries admitted to sexually abusing children — but the church didn’t refer them to police: leaked documents

Link - Instances of Child Sexual Abuse by Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.....    over 300 pages....

Edited September 14, 2018 by changed