Former Bishop Hunger Strike for Youth Interview Policy Change

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm just responding to what others are suggesting: that the delay is because he wants the "mob" to die down.

And if that is the case, is he wrong to delay?

Or is placating a "mob" within the job description of a stake president handling a disciplinary issue?

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That he hopes Sam's audience dissipates.

That may well be.  And if so, we can hardly blame him.

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think fear is actually a kinder possibility for motive than... say...vindictiveness etc.

That, too.  Sam Young is inciting people into a moral panic.  A frenzy.  Against the Church.  That is what he is trying to do.

And the stake president has the misfortune of being the personal representative of the Church as pertaining to Sam Young's disciplinary matters, and hence may feel that he has been targeted by Sam Young and his supporters.  So far the vitriol has been verbal, but could it become something more?

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The SP is doing things for a reason. No one really knows what those reasons are so we speculate why he didn't give the verdict at the DC as is customary. We speculate about why it's Friday and why the verdict still hasn't been given. We wonder what is motivating the delay. Fear seems like a reasonable possibility and is less offensive than claiming its due to vindictiveness, incompetence, or uncaring. So I'm comfortable suggesting fear is driving things. The SP doesn't want to look bad and it doesn't appear that he wants to face Sam Young, hence a letter instead of a face to face discussion.

Imagine if someone was accused of a crime and there was a bench trial where only the judge decided guilt or innocence. The trial concludes but the judge doesn't give his verdict. A week goes by. It's rumored that the judge is sending the defendant his decision via letter, but still, no word on the decision. Would that strike you as odd.

In a criminal trial?  Yes.  In a civil trial?  Not at all.  Judges in Utah have up to 60 days to render a decision.  I have a motion for summary judgment in Montana that has been sitting on the judge's desk for more than six months.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, I'm open to correction.  Does anyone have a link to the video in question?  Is "after party" apt or not?

Thanks,

-Smac

It sounds like @provoman may have seen something that I did not.  After reading Provoman's post, I looked on McKenna Denson's facebook page and there was her video of the proceedings outside the stake center.  It was just people talking about the cause, about Sam, about the DC, etc.  Not something I would refer to as an "after party".  That video was there as of this morning.  I did not see anything else.

I was interested because I asked a question here earlier this week that went unanswered (not that anyone was obligated to answer):  My question was with respect to what happened after the DC when Sam and the SP/HC emerged without a verdict.  Was there a riot?  Did media folks go after the SP?  From what I saw in this video, it just appeared to be people standing around the lawn talking among themselves while Sam did an interview or two.

[provoman]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

Does anyone have access to the letter he wrote to the SP prior to the council? IIRC Sam specifically asked that one charge be dropped altogether as it was totally without merit. Whether or not he's right, isn't the point, I'm just trying to suggest that the claim "he did not deny either charge against him" is incorrect and misrepresents Sam as if he's accepting his own guilt. I don't think that's the case at all.

 

By Sam Young September 1, 2018

III.  You have leveled 2 charges.  In order to plan my response, please forward the evidence against me that you are going to present.  Are you going to call witnesses?  If so, who are they and what evidence will they present?

IV.  Charge #1 is new to me. “Encouraged others to vote opposed to Church leaders.”

We have never discussed this before.  According to the Church Handbook, you are supposed to personally call my sinful behavior to my attention well before any disciplinary court proceedings.  You have not done that.  As a result, I ask that this new and unexpected charge be removed from the allegations to be considered on the 9^th.

Last January, we clearly discussed indictment #2.  So, it’s fair game.  As for #1, if there was any wrong doing on my part, I should have been given the opportunity to repent.  Up to this point, you’ve been good at following the handbook dictates.  I would expect no less of you in regards to this matter.  Charge #1 should be deleted.

 

Friday, September 7, 2018

I find it odd that this document contains the word ‘Agreement.’  There was no negotiation whatsoever.  Only a threat.  If I didn’t sign, I would be eliminated from the court that was called “in my behalf.”  This is classic unrighteous dominion.  Another example of the church fulfilling its own damning prophecies.

D&C 121

39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

No persuasion.  Just a cold mandate dictated from Salt Lake City.

 

By Sam Young September 8, 2018

 

Edited September 14, 2018 by provoman

[strappinglad]

17 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

The judge can take as long as he wants to render a verdict if he isn’t the finder of fact.

Absolutely. I have seen weeks ,sometimes months go by in secular courts before verdicts come down, and then there is another wait before sentencing.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I was interested because I asked a question here earlier this week that went unanswered (not that anyone was obligated to answer):  My question was with respect to what happened after the DC when Sam and the SP/HC emerged without a verdict.  Was there a riot? 

No.

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Did media folks go after the SP?  From what I saw in this video, it just appeared to be people standing around the lawn talking among themselves while Sam did an interview or two.

So the media behaved well, and did not harangue and hector a volunteer religious leader performing a private religious observance?  I'm glad to hear it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Critics have never controlled the situation.

I disagree. They *always* control the situation, up until the Church begins to take action. Then, their ability to control the situation greatly diminishes. 

It always looks like *Earl Weaver, going bananas freaking out an umpire, spitting, kicking dirt on him, scooping up dirt and throwing it at him, while the umpire sits there with a neutral expression, until suddenly he tosses him from the game. 

In a way, you're right that the Church has always been in control during the tirade, just like a major league umpire is while he lets the coach go bonkers before ejecting him. 

In a similar way, everyone in the stadium knows what the outcome is going to be (he's going to get ejected). 

----

*For those who don't know, Earl Weaver was an iconic manager for the Baltimore Orioles who was famous for his rants at umpires when angry. 

Edited September 14, 2018 by rongo

[Calm]

Quote

Nobody" cautioned him. How could you know that

I know of one person who early on was very supportive of Young's drive to protect children, but spent much time trying to persuade him to adjust his efforts to address the issues in more realistic (accurate and effective) ways to no avail.  I suspect he probably knew at least several other such individuals given the type of combination of criticism and support I have seen online.

In the Church's response to him, it was stated he had many conversations with local leaders already and had met with a GA, iirc.  I find it very unrealistic to assume nobody cautioned him about the direction he was taking.

His comment "Last January, we clearly discussed indictment #2." seems good evidence he was cautioned as well.

(borrowed quote from provoman's post)

Edited September 14, 2018 by Calm

[ttribe]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

I disagree. They *always* control the situation, up until the Church begins to take action. Then, their ability to control the situation greatly diminishes. 

It always looks like *Earl Weaver, going bananas freaking out an umpire, spitting, kicking dirt on him, scooping up dirt and throwing it at him, while the umpire sits there with a neutral expression, until suddenly he tosses him from the game. 

In a way, you're right that the Church has always been in control during the tirade, just like a major league umpire is while he lets the coach go bonkers before ejecting him. 

In a similar way, everyone in the stadium knows what the outcome is going to be (he's going to get ejected). 

----

*For those who don't know, Earl Weaver was an iconic manager for the Baltimore Orioles who was famous for his rants at umpires when angry. 

This is still one of my favorites for manager performances: 

 

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

This is still one of my favorites for manager performances: 

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

58 minutes ago, provoman said:

 

By Sam Young September 1, 2018

III.  You have leveled 2 charges.  In order to plan my response, please forward the evidence against me that you are going to present.  Are you going to call witnesses?  If so, who are they and what evidence will they present?

IV.  Charge #1 is new to me. “Encouraged others to vote opposed to Church leaders.”

We have never discussed this before.  According to the Church Handbook, you are supposed to personally call my sinful behavior to my attention well before any disciplinary court proceedings.  You have not done that.  As a result, I ask that this new and unexpected charge be removed from the allegations to be considered on the 9^th.

Last January, we clearly discussed indictment #2.  So, it’s fair game.  As for #1, if there was any wrong doing on my part, I should have been given the opportunity to repent.  Up to this point, you’ve been good at following the handbook dictates.  I would expect no less of you in regards to this matter.  Charge #1 should be deleted.

 

Friday, September 7, 2018

I find it odd that this document contains the word ‘Agreement.’  There was no negotiation whatsoever.  Only a threat.  If I didn’t sign, I would be eliminated from the court that was called “in my behalf.”  This is classic unrighteous dominion.  Another example of the church fulfilling its own damning prophecies.

D&C 121

39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

No persuasion.  Just a cold mandate dictated from Salt Lake City.

 

By Sam Young September 8, 2018

 

Thanks for sharing.

I think that proves both of my points.

1- he disputed the charges

2- he didn't "belittle" the SP. Saying he is using unrighteous dominion by not following the church's own policies is NOT "belittling".

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Thanks for sharing.

I think that proves both of my points.

1- he disputed the charges

2- he didn't "belittle" the SP. Saying he is using unrighteous dominion by not following the church's own policies is NOT "belittling".

I've never heard not following the church's policies as described as unrighteous dominion?  The scriptures that talk about don't seem to use that as one of the qualifications.

It does seem interesting that he would try to dispute the "Encouraged others to vote opposed to Church leaders" charge just because his leader didn't bring it up before hand (if that's accurate).  If I'm remembering right (it's been a while) i've read quotes from him saying exactly that, so why try to get off on a 'technicality' if you know you're guilty?  I mean, we're talking about a church court here, not a court of law.

[ksfisher]

23 minutes ago, ttribe said:

This is still one of my favorites for manager performances: 

 

That's embarrassing.

[rongo]

Just now, ksfisher said:

That's embarrassing.

Phillip Wellman, or Sam Young?  

Because, the tactics and hijinks are similar. 

[provoman]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The videos were removed?  I wonder why.  

You had "Sam Young DC after party" in quotes.  Was that your term, or was it on Ms. Denson's webpage?

Thanks,

-Smac

yes my term. For the record, tbe video I saw, I did not see sam young in it.

But it did appear to be a party, and it did appear to be after the DC.

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Thanks for sharing.

I think that proves both of my points.

1- he disputed the charges

He disputes the first charge.  He does not appear to dispute the second.

The second is fairly vague.

Quote

2- he didn't "belittle" the SP. Saying he is using unrighteous dominion by not following the church's own policies is NOT "belittling".

From his letter:

• "Whatever happened to the spirit of discernment that you as the Stake President are supposed to have?"
• "Only I risk being torn away from my family for eternity.  Yet, your actions have intimidated the very witnesses that could come to my defense. "
• "You and the Church culture have bullied credible witnesses into silence. "
• "There are many possible witnesses in good standing who live in my ward and in the stake you govern.  But you and the Church have filled them to the brim with fear."
• "I’ve never viewed disciplinary councils as kangaroo courts.  The restrictions you have placed on potential witnesses have eliminated the vast majority of my friends from being qualified.  Your intimidation has effectively eliminated my friends who ARE ‘members in good standing.’  The way this tribunal is presently constructed IS a kangaroo court."
• "I call on you to change your witness requirement stating that 'witnesses must be members of the Church in good standing.'  Otherwise, you are belittling & making a mockery of the Plan of Salvation.  I should be given every opportunity to present a compelling defense so that I have at least a small chance at real justice.   Not kangaroo justice."
• "Even the church toilets are worth more than salvation.  I have spent hours and hours cleaning them and the rest of the church building.  The defense of my eternal destiny isn’t even worth 1 hour.  What kind of a time limit is that?"
• "Certainly, my years of dedicated service, my family and my eternity are worth as much time as the Church toilets."

I'm not sure if this is "belittling."  But it's accusatory and risible and discourteous.  Far beneath the basic decorum and respect I would hope to see from a former bishop addressing a stake president on a serious matter.

And he published it to the world, so it seems pretty obvious that he's mostly playing to an audience.  Kabuki theater.  Again.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited September 14, 2018 by smac97

[provoman]

30 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Thanks for sharing.

I think that proves both of my points.

1- he disputed the charges

2- he didn't "belittle" the SP. Saying he is using unrighteous dominion by not following the church's own policies is NOT "belittling".

He did not deny the charges in his statement before the Council.

He did not deny the charge in the letter to his SP.

He did not state it was without was without merit, he asked for it to removed.

I did not attempt to quote his statement that is belitting of the Church Leaders and members of the Council that he made at his DC.

So none of your points were proven.

Edited September 14, 2018 by provoman

[HappyJackWagon]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've never heard not following the church's policies as described as unrighteous dominion?  The scriptures that talk about don't seem to use that as one of the qualifications.

It does seem interesting that he would try to dispute the "Encouraged others to vote opposed to Church leaders" charge just because his leader didn't bring it up before hand (if that's accurate).  If I'm remembering right (it's been a while) i've read quotes from him saying exactly that, so why try to get off on a 'technicality' if you know you're guilty?  I mean, we're talking about a church court here, not a court of law.

Unrighteous dominion is often a judgment call based on POV but if the priesthood leader is using his priesthood authority in a way that contradicts the way the church says he should use his priesthood authority, then yeah...unrighteous dominion. It's usually about coercion or force instead of patience and long suffering. If the handbook specifically states that a leader should counsel with and correct a member if they are doing something inappropriate to give them a chance to correct their behavior prior to holding a DC, yet the SP decides to go straight to the DC, then he's misusing his authority. Unrighteous dominion might be a fitting explanation.

It makes perfect sense that Sam Young would first approach the procedural issue and asking for the charge to be dismissed. If it's not even an appropriate charge because the SP didn't follow the proper procedure, then it should be dropped. Why argue the merits if the charge isn't appropriate to begin with based on the church's own policy. It's not a court of law, but the church has policies that should be followed. It's really the only protection the accused gets, and it's not much. Leaders should follow their own rules. That's a very reasonable expectation. And keep in mind, this is a letter sent prior to the DC. Assuming the SP ignored the claim that it was an inappropriate charge, then I'm sure it was discussed and Sam Young made his case at the DC.

But think about what an uphill battle that is. The SP calls a DC and makes accusations that don't follow the church's guidelines. Sam Young points out the flaw in the accusation to the SP who made the charge and makes the judgement. The deck is stacked. All he can do is try to make the points available to him.

[HappyJackWagon]

40 minutes ago, provoman said:

1-He did not deny the charges in his statement before the Council.

2-He did not deny the charge in the letter to his SP.

He did not state it was without was without merit, he asked for it to removed.

3-I did not attempt to quote his statement that is belitting of the Church Leaders and members of the Council that he made at his DC.

So none of your points were proven.

1-You have a record of everything he said to the disciplinary council? How is that? I thought recording was forbidden. Or are referring only to the brief written statements?

2- He "disputed" the charge on a procedural issue. If you want to claim that's different than "denying" the charge, that's fine. But keep in mind that letter was sent to the SP in preparation for the DC. It wasn't meant as his defense. If it was, he probably wouldn't have bothered showing up to talk and defend himself.

3- You were responding to my request for a reference in which he belittled the SP so I naturally thought that's what you were providing. If not, why not? If you're going to stick by your claim that he was belittling the SP, please provide a reference. CFR

Edited September 14, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[ksfisher]

11 minutes ago, rongo said:

Phillip Wellman, or Sam Young?  

Because, the tactics and hijinks are similar. 

Wellman was who I was referring to.  I mostly just find the whole Sam Young thing sad.  First, because of members of the church who act inappropriately.  And second because Young's tactics have the potential to lead more people away from the church than are already struggling due to the problems that he's trying to solve.

[provoman]

26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

1-You have a record of everything he said before the disciplinary council? Who is that? I thought recording was forbidden. Or are referring only to the brief written statements?

2- He "disputed" the charge on a procedural issue. If you want to claim that's different than "denying" the charge, that's fine. But keep in mind that letter was sent to the SP in preparation for the DC. It wasn't meant as his defense. If it was, he probably wouldn't have bothered showing up to talk and defend himself.

3- You were responding to my request for a reference in which he belittled the SP so I naturally thought that's what you were providing. If not, why not? If you're going to stick by your claim that he was belittling the SP, please provide a reference. CFR

1. I have been very clear, and you have tried to obfuscate. 

I have been consistent that in his statement to the Council - which statememt is published on his blog, which blog is available for anyone to read that in that statment that sam young published that it did not appear me the denied the charges or addressed the charges.

3. I was responding to your request about the letter to his SP and if he claimed a charge was witbout merit. You can read his statement to his Council on his blog.

Edited September 14, 2018 by provoman

[Calm]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

1- he disputed the charges

Anyone notice the title of his Mormonstories interview?

"649: SAM YOUNG – LIVING THE LAW OF COMMON CONSENT BY VOTING OPPOSED"

Quote

Over time, Sam developed his own method for expressing concern about LDS policy and administrative problems — he decided to begin living the Law of Common Consent as found in Doctrine and Covenants 26, which to him means that during every ward, stake and general conference Sam will be voting opposed when asked to sustain the LDS first presidency and the quorum of the 12 apostles. Sam is also inviting other LDS church members to consider a similar approach if they object to recent policy and administrative changes.  Sam’s blog can be found here.

 

Edited September 14, 2018 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, provoman said:

1. I have been very clear, and you have tried to obfuscate. 

I have been consistent that in his statement to the Council - which statememt is published on his blog, which blog is available for anyone to read that in that statment that sam young published that it did not appear me the denied the charges or addressed the charges.

3. I was responding to your request about the letter to his SP and if he claimed a charge was witbout merit. You can read his statement on his blog.

1-You haven't been clear and I haven't obfuscated. Perhaps you could provide an example of how I'm obfuscating. Please back up your accusation.

3- Is that how CFR's work? You make a statement. I ask for a reference. You tell me to go read his blog. How about you provide the quote from his blog that proves your point, along with a link.

I maintain the CFR only because you ignored it once and now you are simply telling me to go read his blog. Provide the CFR or retract your accusation.

[bluebell]

35 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Unrighteous dominion is often a judgment call based on POV but if the priesthood leader is using his priesthood authority in a way that contradicts the way the church says he should use his priesthood authority, then yeah...unrighteous dominion. It's usually about coercion or force instead of patience and long suffering. If the handbook specifically states that a leader should counsel with and correct a member if they are doing something inappropriate to give them a chance to correct their behavior prior to holding a DC, yet the SP decides to go straight to the DC, then he's misusing his authority. Unrighteous dominion might be a fitting explanation.

It makes perfect sense that Sam Young would first approach the procedural issue and asking for the charge to be dismissed. If it's not even an appropriate charge because the SP didn't follow the proper procedure, then it should be dropped. Why argue the merits if the charge isn't appropriate to begin with based on the church's own policy. It's not a court of law, but the church has policies that should be followed. It's really the only protection the accused gets, and it's not much. Leaders should follow their own rules. That's a very reasonable expectation. And keep in mind, this is a letter sent prior to the DC. Assuming the SP ignored the claim that it was an inappropriate charge, then I'm sure it was discussed and Sam Young made his case at the DC.

But think about what an uphill battle that is. The SP calls a DC and makes accusations that don't follow the church's guidelines. Sam Young points out the flaw in the accusation to the SP who made the charge and makes the judgement. The deck is stacked. All he can do is try to make the points available to him.

 I've seen bishops not follow policy sometimes, when they felt it was better not to, and I've never seen that described as unrighteous dominion.  

Also, if i'm understanding right, Sam Young isn't pointing out a flaw in the accusation, he's pointing out a flaw in the timing of the accusation.  It sounds like he thinks the accusation should have come earlier.  From my perspective though, what does it matter? If Sam Young did encourage others to oppose church leaders (which I think I remember him doing), then there are two possible outcomes after church leaders have accused him of such:  He repents or he doesn't.  Those outcomes are the same regardless of the timing of the accusations.  

If he's going to repent, then he can do that at the disciplinary council just as easily as he could have a few weeks ago.  And if he repents then there would be no disciplinary action on that charge (if i'm understanding correctly).  If he's not going to repent, then he can not repent at the disciplinary council just as easily as he could not repent a few weeks ago.  And if he stands his ground on his justifications for doing no repenting, then whether he stood his ground a few weeks ago or at the council, the result is the same.

From what I've seen in the past, it really isn't an uphill battle at all for those who are willing to follow the council of the Stake President and stop doing what the church says that they can't be doing and still be a member.  I agree though that it very much is an uphill battle to try to maintain church membership while doing stuff that the church says you can't do and still be a member.   That doesn't mean the deck is stacked though. 

[Judd]

Looks like he has his letter butnis delaying reading it until a press conference Sunday in SLC. 

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/09/14/sam-young-has-letter

I suppose such an important, even eternal, matter can wait until Sunday when the cameras are rolling.

Edited September 14, 2018 by Judd

[Calm]

Kate Kelly responded to her DC as if it was a legal proceeding as I remember.  Now Young seems to have done the same thing.  It seems, imo, to be a fundamental misunderstanding/misrepresentation on their purpose.