Sam Young is Excommunicated

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm curious how you think this benefits Sam? Clearly it must if he released the recording, right? What's the purpose? This does more to hurt him than help his cause.

Publicity. The circus goes on! Adoration, gravitas, and accolades from fellow travelers. 

That's exactly why he would anonymously release it via Mike Norton. 

Can you really see one of the high councilors or stake presidency members feeding this to Mike Norton? Sure, "anything's possible," but c'mon . . . 

[Scott Lloyd]

29 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Sam Young and his wife did not record the proceedings. 

CFR 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So you're sticking with your statement of fact that you admit you can't prove. Interesting.

I'm characterizing it as a surmise.

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm curious how you think this benefits Sam?

I have no particular insights as to the inner-workings of Sam Young's thought processes.  I think much of what he has done has been manifestly boneheaded and counter-productive.

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Clearly it must if he released the recording, right?  What's the purpose?  This does more to hurt him than help his cause. It's interesting that you're so confident in your assumption that you are unwilling to even accept the possibility you are wrong, or accept a CFR to provide evidence of your position.

Again, I'm characterizing it as a surmise.  

But it's a pretty reasonable one.  Either Sam Young recorded the council or someone did it at his behest and/or on his behalf.  That's what I think happened.

It's interesting that you are suddenly a stickler for evidentiary rectitude.  Are you going to start giving Joseph Bishop the same sort of super-duper benefit of the doubt as you are apparently extending to Sam Young?

Or is it only the implacably hostile opponents of the Church that are deserving of such kidglove treatment?

-Smac

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Quote

And yet, the recording exists.  So how do you account for it?

This person "support[ed]" Sam Young by violating the trust of the stake president, the other members of the council, and the Church by secretly recording a disciplinary council and sending it to one of the most virulent anti-Mormons alive today.

Are you expecting us to surmise that Sam Young had nothing to do with this recording?  

Thanks,

-Smac

I have no idea and I'm not expecting you to surmise anything.  I just expressed my thoughts on it (the ones you quoted) and I stand by those.  Though the likelihood varies dramatically from person to person, the recording could have come from anyone in that room.  Or, perhaps, from someone who planted a device in the room.  

I think it's reasonable to surmise that the recording was done with the involvement of Sam Young.

Thanks,

-Smac

[lostindc]

11 hours ago, lostindc said:

So you’re okay with rolling the dice on today’s LDS youth and keeping the status of worthiness interviews the same?

@Duncan So you’re okay with rolling the dice on today’s LDS youth and keeping the status of worthiness interviews the same?

[Abulafia]

30 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Someone in the high council?

That would be my guess. 

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Quote

It's a reasonable surmise...

Is that our new standard here?

Reasonable surmises?  In the absence of concrete evidence?  How is that problematic?

Meanwhile, I am curious if you are willing to extend the same exacting standards of evidentiary perfection to the allegations made by McKenna Denson against Joseph Bishop.  For me, I have made some adverse surmises against Joseph Bishop based on the evidence and circumstances, not unlike how I am making reasonable surmises now as to the recording of Sam Young's disciplinary council and it being posted online by Mike Norton.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Abulafia said:

That would be my guess. (someone on the high council).

Time for a molehunt and witchhunt . . .  

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

Can you really see one of the high councilors or stake presidency members feeding this to Mike Norton? Sure, "anything's possible," but c'mon . . . 

This is the stake in which Sam has lived and in which he served as a bishop, right?  I think it is likely that he's got some allies there. 

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think it's reasonable to surmise that the recording was done with the involvement of Sam Young.

While I don't discount that possibility.  I also think it's possible that someone else in the room did the recording.  It seems unlikely that every member of the HC and the SP counselors would have been in agreement with what was happening.  (I haven't listened to to the recording, and probably won't, so I don't really know how this benefits/harms either side.)

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm characterizing it as a surmise.

I have no particular insights as to the inner-workings of Sam Young's thought processes.  I think much of what he has done has been manifestly boneheaded and counter-productive.

Again, I'm characterizing it as a surmise.  

But it's a pretty reasonable one.  Either Sam Young recorded the council or someone did it at his behest and/or on his behalf.  That's what I think happened.

It's interesting that you are suddenly a stickler for evidentiary rectitude.  Are you going to start giving Joseph Bishop the same sort of super-duper benefit of the doubt as you are apparently extending to Sam Young?

Or is it only the implacably hostile opponents of the Church that are deserving of such kidglove treatment?

-Smac

You've judged him to be without integrity because of your surmise, yet you present another possibility, that someone else did in on "at his behest and/or his behalf". I'm curious, if someone else recorded it on Sam's "behalf" but not at his "behest" is Sam still without honesty and integrity? If he was not behind the recording, should his integrity be impugned? It seems like a reasonable surmise that someone else recorded it. Even if they did it, thinking it helped Sam, yet he had not requested, nor even desired for it to be recorded, Sam would be innocent and his integrity would be intact.

Once again, you can't help but try to make this about me. You seem to have a HappyJackWagon obsession . But your suggestion that I am "suddenly" interested in evidence to back up claims is both rude, and wrong.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Reasonable surmises?  In the absence of concrete evidence?  How is that problematic?

Meanwhile, I am curious if you are willing to extend the same exacting standards of evidentiary perfection to the allegations made by McKenna Denson against Joseph Bishop.  For me, I have made some adverse surmises against Joseph Bishop based on the evidence and circumstances, not unlike how I am making reasonable surmises now as to the recording of Sam Young's disciplinary council and it being posted online by Mike Norton.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm okay with stating reasonable surmises.  I thought you were using that as a response to a CFR.  But now I see that you are restating your original assertion as a surmise.  I think that's a fair way to have a discussion here.

[provoman]

43 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If you're going to impugn Sam Young's honesty and integrity I think you should at least provide evidence that he actually recorded the proceeding, contrary to what he claimed. I have yet to see a link to any recording, let alone any evidence that he recorded it. CFR.

ETA- I found the link Provoman referenced. It says it was recorded by "Alma". It seems odd to me that Sam Young would use a pseudonym when he's been so open about this process. How do we know it's Sam Young and not someone else. In fact, wouldn't the name Alma suggest that it was one of the council members there in attendance? Like I asked before, Sam was required to sign the form and also had his phone confiscated. Was anyone else forced to sign or have their phone confiscated?

What benefit would Sam get from recording and releasing the SP's accusation without any comment?

I'll be willing to accept whatever the evidence states, but to me it seems more likely that someone else recorded this, and not necessarily on Sam's behalf. This recording seems more harmful than beneficial to his cause. I'm honestly perplexed by this. Who gave it to NNN? What is the benefit and why would he post if he's in agreement with Sam Young?

Everyone in the room was required to sign.

 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

While I don't discount that possibility.  I also think it's possible that someone else in the room did the recording. 

I'm open to that possibility.  But I think whoever recorded it did so at the behest of or for the benefit of Sam Young.  Respondeat superior and all that.

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

It seems unlikely that every member of the HC and the SP counselors would have been in agreement with what was happening.  (I haven't listened to to the recording, and probably won't, so I don't really know how this benefits/harms either side.)

It's not that interesting.

It does, however, speak to the ethics of Sam Young and those who may be aligned with him.

The recording of the council was a profound breach of trust.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Reasonable surmises?  In the absence of concrete evidence?  How is that problematic?

Meanwhile, I am curious if you are willing to extend the same exacting standards of evidentiary perfection to the allegations made by McKenna Denson against Joseph Bishop.  For me, I have made some adverse surmises against Joseph Bishop based on the evidence and circumstances, not unlike how I am making reasonable surmises now as to the recording of Sam Young's disciplinary council and it being posted online by Mike Norton.

Thanks,

-Smac

Has anyone asked for evidentiary perfection? There is a total lack of evidence on this. Show me ANY evidence that Sam Young was behind the recording. FTR- your surmises do not count as evidence.

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

This is the stake in which Sam has lived and in which he served as a bishop, right?  I think it is likely that he's got some allies there. 

I could possibly see some pitying him or feeling sorry for him --- or even sympathizing with his cause.

But anonymously feeding the surreptitious recording to Mike Norton? 

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, provoman said:

Everyone in the room was required to sign.

 

Cool. Were their phones confiscated like his?

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It does, however, speak to the ethics of Sam Young and those who may be aligned with him.

 

And there you go again.  Assuming guilt.  SMH... I tried.

[HappyJackWagon]

Just now, rongo said:

I could possibly see some pitying him or feeling sorry for him --- or even sympathizing with his cause.

But anonymously feeding the surreptitious recording to Mike Norton? 

You don't think there are any critics on high councils?

[provoman]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

Cool. Were their phones confiscated like his?

I dont know anything about phone confiscation. 

[Avatar4321]

44 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Someone in the high council?

And handed it to NNN?

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You don't think there are any critics on high councils?

It is naive to assume that there aren't.  Especially in Sam Young's home stake.

[rongo]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

You don't think there are any critics on high councils?

Sure, but I think it's rare. Generally, the gadflies and rebels aren't the types who are called into the high priest positions within a stake. Of course it's possible that there are some Trojan horse/5th columnist types. 

C'mon, though. Using Occam's Razor/law of parsimony, who is the most likely: the one who has already demonstrated a proclivity and love for live streaming, new footage attention, or members of the high council/stake presidency? 

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm open to that possibility.  But I think whoever recorded it did so at the behest of or for the benefit of Sam Young.  Respondeat superior and all that.

It's not that interesting.

It does, however, speak to the ethics of Sam Young and those who may be aligned with him.

The recording of the council was a profound breach of trust.

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree it was a breach of trust.

But you continue to claim thes was done at Sam Young's behest when you have nothing but a guess. You've suggested you are open to the idea of someone else doing it, yet you continue to impugn Sam Young's integrity. If someone did it, unbeknownst to him, there is no breach in his ethics.

If a High councilor recorded despite signing the no record document, it would be a breach of his ethics, not Sam Young's. You should really quit your character assassination based on your surmises. Provide some evidence. Any evidence. It doesn't have to be perfect.

[rockpond]

Just now, rongo said:

Sure, but I think it's rare. Generally, the gadflies and rebels aren't the types who are called into the high priest positions within a stake. Of course it's possible that there are some Trojan horse/5th columnist types. 

C'mon, though. Using Occam's Razor/law of parsimony, who is the most likely: the one who has already demonstrated a proclivity and love for live streaming, new footage attention, or members of the high council/stake presidency? 

Given that I am continually shocked to find the number of non-believers sitting on the pews and serving in all levels of callings... I'm not ready to make any assumptions.

[Avatar4321]

22 minutes ago, lostindc said:

Not sure how the elimination of worthiness interviews would lead to banning youth from the temple?

How do you propose we determine whether a youth is eligible to go to the temple if they aren’t interviewed?