Former Bishop Hunger Strike for Youth Interview Policy Change

[Tacenda]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So has the guy starved to death yet?

Not yet, but his body is going through some stuff. Before the fast he slowly cut out foods and built up to the hunger strike. I couldn't do it in a million years. Someone told him, I listened to a podcast he was on, that if he went over 21 days it will be national news or something. I think he said it will be going on 23 days this Sunday, pretty sure he'll get there, not sure if it will go national or not. He's lost 27 lbs.

Edited August 15, 2018 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

22 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Why should they be?

Where do I begin?

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

Quote

Why should they be?

Where do I begin?

With evidence and reasoned argument.

Not with anecdotes or facile aphorisms.

Not with unsubstantiated, because-I-say-so personal opinions.

Not with flippant sarcasm and snarky catch-phrases.

Not with demeaning sneers and insults.

Not with unsubstantiated accusations.

Not with broad smears against the many thousands of good and decent men who, despite not volunteering, nevertheless agree to spend considerable time and effort (without pay, and for many years) to serve others in a very difficult calling, only to be casually slandered as presumptive perverts and child molesters.

Again, evidence and reasoned argument would be nice.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

With evidence and reasoned argument.

Not with anecdotes or facile aphorisms.

Not with unsubstantiated, because-I-say-so personal opinions.

Not with flippant sarcasm and snarky catch-phrases.

Not with demeaning sneers and insults.

Not with unsubstantiated accusations.

Not with broad smears against the many thousands of good and decent men who, despite not volunteering, nevertheless agree to spend considerable time and effort (without pay, and for many years) to serve others in a very difficult calling, only to be casually slandered as presumptive perverts and child molesters.

Again, evidence and reasoned argument would be nice.

Thanks,

-Smac

So scout leaders are different? It should be standard with everyone that comes into contact alone with the youth. But I see your point as well. 

[ksfisher]

39 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Where do I begin?

But why bishops and not every single person who attends church? 

[Prof]

43 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

But why bishops and not every single person who attends church? 

Every person at church-probably not. But an argument could be made for others who come in contact with youth. Primary teachers, those assigned to Young men and Young women, those working in the nursery...

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, Prof said:

Every person at church-probably not. But an argument could be made for others who come in contact with youth. Primary teachers, those assigned to Young men and Young women, those working in the nursery...

Great question. Of course, for the most part YM leaders had background checks because they were a part of scouting. That will actually go away so there will be fewer checks going forward.

But the idea that someone can be called to work with nursery or primary kids with no background checks is pretty stunning. When this topic comes up I'm always reminded of the time a pedophile was called to work in the nursery when I had a daughter there. I didn't learn about it until later, but the previous bishop knew about that man's proclivities but the new bishop did not. In fact the new bishop rejected an offer from the old bishop to debrief on significant issues in the ward, so he was totally ignorant that he had called a pedophile to the nursery. That ticks me off. What ticks me off even more is when I learned about this I confronted the old bishop who knowingly sustained this individual into the calling. He responded by telling me he was supporting his priesthood leader and that if anything bad happened in that nursery the new bishop would have to answer to God for it. I lost all respect for both the old and the new bishop for their absolute negligence in this matter.

[rongo]

So, I'm hearing that he went full-out Denver Snuffer yesterday, claiming a visit from Jesus ("I've gone over their heads"). 

Does that change anything for the "Go, Sam, go!" crowd?

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

So, I'm hearing that he went full-out Denver Snuffer yesterday, claiming a visit from Jesus ("I've gone over their heads"). 

Does that change anything for the "Go, Sam, go!" crowd?

No, I'm listening to his video on FB right now. He said he's inviting Jesus to sit in the chair, and going over the heads of those apostles/first presidency that didn't show up. And then he is having volunteers sit down and he washed their feet and they then tell their story if they want. All symbolically, something our church does all the time. So Rongo, you need to back up your statement that he is claiming a visit from Jesus. 

[rongo]

Just now, Tacenda said:

No, I'm listening to his video on FB right now. He said he's inviting Jesus to sit in the chair, and going over the heads of those apostles/first presidency that didn't show up. And then he is having volunteers sit down and he washed their feet and they then tell their story if they want. All symbolically, something our church does all the time. So Rongo, you need to back up your statement that he is claiming a visit from Jesus. 

I said "I'm hearing" --- as in, "I've heard." That's my support. 

I bring it up, because I'm not going to listen to a five-hour broadcast. I was hoping someone would give further details. Thanks for the details you have added!

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Great question. Of course, for the most part YM leaders had background checks because they were a part of scouting. That will actually go away so there will be fewer checks going forward.

But the idea that someone can be called to work with nursery or primary kids with no background checks is pretty stunning. When this topic comes up I'm always reminded of the time a pedophile was called to work in the nursery when I had a daughter there. I didn't learn about it until later, but the previous bishop knew about that man's proclivities but the new bishop did not. In fact the new bishop rejected an offer from the old bishop to debrief on significant issues in the ward, so he was totally ignorant that he had called a pedophile to the nursery. That ticks me off. What ticks me off even more is when I learned about this I confronted the old bishop who knowingly sustained this individual into the calling. He responded by telling me he was supporting his priesthood leader and that if anything bad happened in that nursery the new bishop would have to answer to God for it. I lost all respect for both the old and the new bishop for their absolute negligence in this matter.

 

 

https://childrensministry.com/safety-first/2/

I think it's time... 

When I think of all the instances that put a child in harms way. I think of the nursery...they check for poopy diapers, etc. Okay, I know this sounds pretty strange that I would say this, but that's what happens before going to a parent to have them changed. Doing things to a child while the other leader is turned away. 

And I know for a fact that in my previous wards many, many times a teacher is teaching alone because her/his team teacher isn't there. And the primary presidency did nothing, saw it with my own eyes. So this could happen in any classroom from 3 yrs. on up.

The church has the funds. What I don't get is the backlash for even suggesting it when I did. What, so leaders aren't infallible, hmm, I get it. The church high-ups say this, the members just don't believe it apparently.

 

[Danzo]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

 

 

https://childrensministry.com/safety-first/2/

I think it's time... 

When I think of all the instances that put a child in harms way. I think of the nursery...they check for poopy diapers, etc. Okay, I know this sounds pretty strange that I would say this, but that's what happens before going to a parent to have them changed. Doing things to a child while the other leader is turned away. 

And I know for a fact that in my previous wards many, many times a teacher is teaching alone because her/his team teacher isn't there. And the primary presidency did nothing, saw it with my own eyes. So this could happen in any classroom from 3 yrs. on up.

The church has the funds. What I don't get is the backlash for even suggesting it when I did. What, so leaders aren't infallible, hmm, I get it. The church high-ups say this, the members just don't believe it apparently.

 

I think that leaving a child with a poopy diaper is child abuse.

For you to think that checking for a poopy diaper = child abuse is very strange.  Did you have any children? 

Do you know what happens to a child who is left with a poopy diaper?

Edited August 16, 2018 by Danzo

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I think that leaving a child with a poopy diaper is child abuse.

For you to think that checking for a poopy diaper = child abuse is very strange.  Did you have any children? 

You totally misunderstood, I full well know a child shouldn't be left with a poopy diaper, I have 5 kids, and I served in the nursery for several years at various times. What I meant to say, is that a nursery leader that is a pedophile could make it look like they are checking for a poopy diaper. Or do other things while the other leader isn't looking, even while holding a child. 

Edited August 16, 2018 by Tacenda

[Judd]

30 minutes ago, rongo said:

So, I'm hearing that he went full-out Denver Snuffer yesterday, claiming a visit from Jesus ("I've gone over their heads"). 

Does that change anything for the "Go, Sam, go!" crowd?

Link?

Well, in my original post of Homer’s hunger strike, he saw Cesar Chavez (albeit in the form of Cesar Romero).

[Danzo]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

You totally misunderstood, I full well know a child shouldn't be left with a poopy diaper, I have 5 kids, and I served in the nursery for several years at various times. What I meant to say, is that a nursery leader that is a pedophile could make it look like they are checking for a poopy diaper. Or do other things while the other leader isn't looking, even while holding a child. 

Anyone checking for a poopy diaper could be a pedophile. So you think diapers should not be checked? Does it now require two people to check a poopy diaper? 

Your paranoia is going to cause a lot of painful rashes because you don't trust the nursery leaders.  

 

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, Judd said:

Link?

Well, in my original post of Homer’s hunger strike, he saw Cesar Chavez (albeit in the form of Cesar Romero).

Oh, Romero, Romero! Wherefore art thou ...?

[Tacenda]

11 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Anyone checking for a poopy diaper could be a pedophile. So you think diapers should not be checked? Does it now require two people to check a poopy diaper? 

Your paranoia is going to cause a lot of painful rashes because you don't trust the nursery leaders.  

 

No, I think there should be background checks on those that work with children. Danzo, is it that hard to understand? You misconstrue very well. Especially purporting things like I want two people to check for a poopy diaper, I'd laugh but it's not funny how you're reacting to my posts. Maybe it's a case of not handling any type of backlash at anything the church does. Did I do to you what you did to me, and mistakenly say things you do not think/believe? Not fun huh?  

ETA: Danzo, I'm on limited so I ran out of posts. I find it hard to believe that you are not intelligent to understand what I'm saying, I think you're just being difficult on purpose, I didn't say they should have to have a background check to check for a poopy diaper, laughable. I said that anyone that is working with a child should get a background check. Other churches do this, but not ours? There again, maybe you think it's ludicrous, since no LDS could ever think of doing this hideous thing. But do you not believe that a pedophile might like to join the church just to do an evil deed? I'm sure it happens, since so many other things happen to trusting LDS, such as taking their money through scamming them etc.

Edited August 16, 2018 by Tacenda

[Gray]

I don't know if this was shared here or not, but I recently saw a quote from Brigham Young about who it is appropriate to confess to, which seems germane to the topic of youth worthiness interviews:

 

Quote

If you have sinned against a family or a neighborhood, go to them and confess. If you have sinned against your Ward, confess to your Ward. If you have sinned against one individual, take that person by yourselves and make your confession to him. And if you have sinned against your God, or against yourselves, confess to God, and keep the matter to yourselves, for I do not want to know anything about it.

http://jod.mrm.org/8/361

Edited August 16, 2018 by Gray

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Judd said:

Link?

Well, in my original post of Homer’s hunger strike, he saw Cesar Chavez (albeit in the form of Cesar Romero).

See here, I think.

Quote

For 15 nights, I invited the 15 apostles to come to temple square and meet with adults who have been hurt as children.  Over those 15 day, upwards of 800 people, members and former members gathered with anticipation.  Every night their hopes were dashed.  They were greeted by an empty chair.

The apostles are fully aware of the thousands of children who their policies have dreadfully hurt.  They are fully aware that their protocols continue to put our kids in harms way.  They continue to refuse to even recognize their victims.  The apostles remain in their comfy ivory tower and look down with, what appears to be, dismissal and disregard for the masses.

Well, fine.  If that’s the way they want it, I am going over their heads…directly to the master of the universe.  For the last 4 nights at Temple Square, I’ve invitedJesus to join us.  

Will he actually show up?  I don’t have certain confirmation.  However, I’m pretty sure He will not disappoint.  A chair will be awaiting Him.  Not a red velvet throne fit for an apostle.  Nope.  A lowly camp chair.  The same humble seating that the apostles treated with disdain.

Tonight’s Temple-side Chat with Jesus will include 3 significant events.

1) Christ will occupy the empty chair.  I hope.

2) This night will be my Ezekiel evening.

3) A new ritual will be established and continued for the last 4 nights of our Chats.

Amazing how in just a few words he manages to both aggrandize himself and demean apostles.

I am saddened at his deteriorating attitude and posture.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

Just now, Tacenda said:

No, I think there should be background checks on those that work with children. Danzo, is it that hard to understand? You misconstrue very well. Especially purporting things like I want two people to check for a poopy diaper, I'd laugh but it's not funny how you're reacting to my posts. Maybe it's a case of not handling any type of backlash at anything the church does. Did I do to you what you did to me, and mistakenly say things you do not think/believe? Not fun huh?  

So now we need a background check before we check for a poopy diaper. 

 

[USU78]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

See here, I think.

Amazing how in just a few words he manages to both aggrandize himself and demean apostles.

I am saddened at his deteriorating attitude and posture.

Thanks,

-Smac

Wow! What an arrogant yutz!

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, Judd said:

Link?

It's on his facebook page (Sam Young). 

---

Spoiler alert:

I'm seeing a predictable trajectory with apostates who a) still claim belief in the Restoration in some form, and b) who are stoking the fires of publicity. They have to keep trying newer and more edgy things to maintain interest in the short attention span/media cycle era. This draws them to shark-jumping territory, ultimately culminating in a revelation that the Church is wrong and God is mad at the Church. 

At minimum, claiming to invite Jesus for a chat, washing people's feet while they tell their "Mormon Stories," and declaring that Jesus is mad at the Church is close enough to outright claiming a personal visitation from Jesus. Sam Young is already there. This has progressed head-spinningly fast. I think he's at the 14:59 mark on his 15 minute Andy Warhol calling plan . . .  

[Danzo]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

It's on his facebook page (Sam Young). 

---

Spoiler alert:

I'm seeing a predictable trajectory with apostates who a) still claim belief in the Restoration in some form, and b) who are stoking the fires of publicity. They have to keep trying newer and more edgy things to maintain interest in the short attention span/media cycle era. This draws them to shark-jumping territory, ultimately culminating in a revelation that the Church is wrong and God is mad at the Church. 

At minimum, claiming to invite Jesus for a chat, washing people's feet while they tell their "Mormon Stories," and declaring that Jesus is mad at the Church is close enough to outright claiming a personal visitation from Jesus. Sam Young is already there. This has progressed head-spinningly fast. I think he's at the 14:59 mark on his 15 minute Andy Warhol calling plan . . .  

sad how quickly this guy deteriorates. 

[rongo]

17 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't know if this was shared here or not, but I recently saw a quote from Brigham Young about who it is appropriate to confess to, which seems germane to the topic of youth worthiness interviews:

Keep in mind that Brigham Young instituted the precursor to worthiness interviews during the Mormon Reformation. Your proof-text is stating a general principle, not a blanket statement showing Brigham Young was channeling Sam Young . . .  Elsewhere, he enjoins priesthood leaders determining worthiness of their flock. 

ETA: A common JoD phrase in reference to priesthood leaders being lax in being the gatekeepers of ordinances (i.e., in not enforcing standards as strictly as they should have) is "partakers of other men's sins." The principle is that leaders who are lax actually partake of the sins by doing so. There are many references to this, but here is one readily at hand because it's in a FAIR paper I wrote on blood atonement. It's in the section "destroyed in the flesh" (all references to this refer to being given up to the buffetings of Satan, not ecclesiastical execution):

---

That is the law. Can I change it? Can you? I speak now to Presidents of Stakes and Bishops. We are told that we are not to be partakers of other men’s sins. Now, you send men with recommends to me to have me pass upon them. I trust to you. I suppose you are acquainted with these things. I suppose you act intelligently and understandingly. But if people do not fulfill the requirements of the Gospel, you have no right to recommend them to the house of the Lord. They do not belong there. People who do not observe the laws of the Gospel and live their religion, should not receive recommends, and if you do recommend such you will be held responsible…I have known cases where wicked and corrupt men have gone into the house of God. The parties administering did not know it, but nevertheless it was a fact. And what has become of them? They have come to me feeling as though they were in hell. They wanted to know what they could do. I told them I did not know; perhaps the Lord would indicate by and by. I say to all, you had better, unless you determine to fear God and keep His laws, quit at once, for God expects us to do right, and will hold us to an account for our acts.

(John Taylor, June 24, 1883. Journal of Discourses 24:269.)

---

Quote mining and proof-texting Brigham Young against worthiness interviews is a fool's errand. It misrepresents how he felt about them, and the direct effect of his example, teaching, and administration regarding them. 

Edited August 16, 2018 by rongo

[Joe]

The church has made some important policy and doctrinal changes in its history that were the result of outside pressure or members challenging the prophet. Among these moral improvements:

• Ordaining blacks 
• Removing the creepiest parts of the endowment and initiatory ceremonies. 
• Acknowledging SSA is not a choice
• Adam God doctrine. Thank you Orson Pratt!
• Stopping polygamy. 
• Correcting historic inaccuracies in CES 
• Women being allowed to pray in church meeting, teach seminary, etc

There are many more examples. The point is, each of these changes came in response to pressure to change. In fact, I challenge you to think of a large change that was not motivated by outside pressure or  from the grass roots. 

I agree with Sam's goal to eliminate these one on one interviews of our youth. I'm not sure I  fully agree with his tactics, but at least he's getting us to talk about it. 

I believe decades from now church members will say something along the lines of, "Did you know that Bishops used to sit in a room alone with kids and ask them to describe their sexual transgressions?!" ... "WHAT?!  NO! Oh my gosh, I can't believe they did that!"