Sam Young is Excommunicated

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

It would be odd for a high councilman to record such a thing and release it to Mike Norton. It would definitely mean that the HCM was leading a double life. 

[Avatar4321]

17 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

That would be my guess. 

You guys are seriously suggesting that a member of the high council secretly recorded a disciplinary council and leaked that recording to one of the most outspoken anti Mormons around?

thats absurd

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, 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? 

I think you're naïve about how rare this is. I know 2 "critics" in my stake on the HC. From other online/FB groups I know many other HC's who are disaffected to one degree or another. It's really not unusually to have someone introduce themselves as being in a high profile stake/ward calling.

Has Sam Young ever avoided attention by using a pseudonym?

Has Sam Young been shy about posting info about his DC on his blog or does he usually run that stuff through NNN?

Frankly, I think Occam's razor suggests it must be someone else. This recording really isn't his style.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Quote

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".

Potato, pot-ah-to.

Again, respondeat superior.  That "other possibility" involves Sam Young coordinating with someone else to act as his agent so as to kinda sorta circumvent his promise not to record the council.  And that makes Sam Young a more honest, reputable person . . . how, exactly?

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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?

No, if he was utterly unaware of the recording, then I'd be happy to revise my surmise.

As it is, however, the surmise remains reasonable.

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It seems like a reasonable surmise that someone else recorded it.

It also seems like a reasonable surmise that Sam Young recorded it.  Or his wife.  Or someone else working with him.

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

"Innocent" of recording the council when he had promised not to?  Yes, I'd go along with that.

But the recording exists.  And it was posted online by Mike Norton, characterized in this post as one of Sam Young's supporters (see also here and here).

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Okay.  I look forward to you applying the same standards of evidence to Joseph Bishop as you do to Sam Young.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Avatar4321]

How does a stake disciplinary council work? I’ve never been party to one. Is it a decision by the president what happens or an issue discussed and brought to unity before acted on?

[provoman]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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

Certainly looks that way doesn't it. Where is Dan Brown?

[lostindc]

3 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

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

Unfortunately, for us raised in Mormonism, we're led to believe that the Lord needs priesthood leaders to micromanage his relationships with each member. The Church can stop micromanaging a person's relationship with God.  I outlined at least one alternative in this thread.  For Mormons, list the expected standards for the youth.  If the kid believes they're not living the standards then they can decline a temple recommend, or whatever Mormon privilege.  No details are required.  No details are asked.  The details are between God and the kid, unless you believe a middle-man is required between God and a person.

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It would be odd for a high councilman to record such a thing and release it to Mike Norton. It would definitely mean that the HCM was leading a double life. 

"Double life" is a little dramatic. I know many disaffected members who are currently, or who were on the HC during part of their disaffection. In my experience it isn't all that rare that at least 1/16 men would be disaffected. I see the recording coming from a HC as a very reasonable possibility. I think many of you here underestimate the level of dissatisfaction/disaffection in the church, even by those who are still active and serving in leadership positions.

[Avatar4321]

Just now, lostindc said:

Unfortunately, for us raised in Mormonism, we're led to believe that the Lord needs priesthood leaders to micromanage his relationships with each member. The Church can stop micromanaging a person's relationship with God.  I outlined at least one alternative in this thread.  For Mormons, list the expected standards for the youth.  If the kid believes they're not living the standards then they can decline a temple recommend, or whatever Mormon privilege.  No details are required.  No details are asked.  The details are between God and the kid, unless you believe a middle-man is required between God and a person.

So we are supposed to ignore that the Bishops calling specifically requires them to make determinations of worthiness?

[lostindc]

4 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

You guys are seriously suggesting that a member of the high council secretly recorded a disciplinary council and leaked that recording to one of the most outspoken anti Mormons around?

thats absurd

Actually yes, if you didn't see yesterday, Sam's bishop flew to SLC to support Sam.  I imagine someone in attendance could easily feel sympathetic to Sam.  I think you'd be surprised that many people within the Church support Sam's position.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, lostindc said:

Unfortunately, for us raised in Mormonism, we're led to believe that the Lord needs priesthood leaders to micromanage his relationships with each member. The Church can stop micromanaging a person's relationship with God.  I outlined at least one alternative in this thread.  For Mormons, list the expected standards for the youth.  If the kid believes they're not living the standards then they can decline a temple recommend, or whatever Mormon privilege.  No details are required.  No details are asked.  The details are between God and the kid, unless you believe a middle-man is required between God and a person.

Well put.

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

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

Is that really necessary? This isn't the 19th century, no one needs to be vetted so that we're sure they'll keep polygamy secret. But there are all kinds of other ways it could be done other than closed door interviews.

[lostindc]

Just now, Avatar4321 said:

So we are supposed to ignore that the Bishops calling specifically requires them to make determinations of worthiness?

What?  Is this the Gospel?  So you're insisting on a middleman between God and a person?

[Avatar4321]

Just now, lostindc said:

Actually yes, if you didn't see yesterday, Sam's bishop flew to SLC to support Sam.  I imagine someone in attendance could easily feel sympathetic to Sam.  I think you'd be surprised that many people within the Church support Sam's position.

I probably would be surprised how many are in apostasy.

I would hope there would be few to none

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

I continue to surmise this.  

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Well, yes and no.  Will Sam Young ask Mr. Norton to take the recording down?  If not, he's ratifying the misconduct, I think.  

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If a High councilor recorded despite signing the no record document, it would be a breach of his ethics, not Sam Young's.

Well, a supporter of Sam Young acting on behalf of Sam Young could still create some "vicarious" responsibility for the misconduct in Sam Young.  But that's not a hair I'm particularly interested in splitting at the moment.

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You should really quit your character assassination based on your surmises.

I'll consider it.

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Provide some evidence. Any evidence. It doesn't have to be perfect.

The council was recorded.  A supporter of Sam Young posted it online.

Res ipsa loquitur.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Avatar4321]

Just now, Gray said:

Is that really necessary? This isn't the 19th century, no one needs to be vetted so that we're sure they'll keep polygamy secret. But there are all kinds of other ways it could be done other than closed door interviews.

Are you suggesting that the only reason we are asked temple recommend questions was to preserve plural marriage as a secret? CFR

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Quote

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.

The council was recorded.  And it was posted by a supporter of Sam Young, who also happens to be one of the most virulently hostile anti-Mormons alive today.

Res ipsa loquitur.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Avatar4321]

2 minutes ago, lostindc said:

What?  Is this the Gospel?  So you're insisting on a middleman between God and a person?

You aren’t familiar with the scriptures if you think the Lord doesn’t call shepherds for the flock 

[Gray]

1 minute ago, Avatar4321 said:

Are you suggesting that the only reason we are asked temple recommend questions was to preserve plural marriage as a secret? CFR

A suspicion only.

If we can trust people to determine their own worthiness to take the sacrament, they can determine their own worthiness to attend the temple.

[HappyJackWagon]

Just now, smac97 said:

I continue to surmise this.  

Well, yes and no.  Will Sam Young ask Mr. Norton to take the recording down?  If not, he's ratifying the misconduct, I think.  

Well, a supporter of Sam Young acting on behalf of Sam Young could still create some "vicarious" responsibility for the misconduct in Sam Young.  But that's not a hair I'm particularly interested in splitting at the moment.

I'll consider it.

The council was recorded.  A supporter of Sam Young posted it online.

Res ipsa loquitur.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't speak latin. You may think it's impressive to post these kinds of things, but maybe you could just use the common language we all speak so that your comments are understandable. Understanding is more important that tossing out pretentious latin phrases.

[lostindc]

Just now, Avatar4321 said:

You aren’t familiar with the scriptures if you think the Lord doesn’t call shepherds for the flock 

So the Shepherds held worthiness interviews with youth?

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Quote

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?

Well, shall we review your various remarks about Joseph Bishop?  I've made plenty of negative surmises about him, based on the available evidence.  And yet I have yet to see you leap up and harrumph and protest about those instances.

20 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

The recording exists.  And it was posted online by someone aligned with Sam Young, who also happens to be one of the most hostile anti-Mormons alive today.

Someone engaged in profound misconduct by recording the council.  It is reasonable to surmise that this person is a supporter of Sam Young.  It is also fairly reasonable to surmise that Sam Young had a hand in the recording.  Mike Norton publishing it gives Sam Young all sorts of plausible deniability.

Tell you what, why don't we ask Mike Norton to spill the beans?  Let's ask him which one of Sam Young's supporters recorded the council.  

Res ipsa loquitur.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Maestrophil]

22 hours ago, SteveO said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.deseretnews.com/article/900030038/heres-why-a-former-mormon-bishop-faces-discipline-from-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints.amp

“During the strike he also characterized the church's position as "insane," called it "the most extreme, unsafe church in America," said "I would not join the church today" and encouraged others not to join.”

I’m sure as brother Sam holds more press conferences, we’ll find out that it really has nothing to do with his concern for the children.

 

 

I might have read the thread a bit lazily - but did no one counter this bit of information brought forth by SteveO?  To me this alone is enough to start proceedings.  If you amplify that by however many times Sam has made such statements publicly, then it seems like he got what he wanted, or was headed towards.  Can any of his defenders help me understand why these statements are defensible?  Publicly defaming the church, the brethren, and actively encouraging others not to join (which logically implies that those who are currently members would be better of leaving).  None of this shows good will on the part of Bro. young to work WITH the Church for the benefit of the children IMO.  Perhaps it started that way, but in light of statements like these, I cannot help but see Sam Young as someone who had purposefully placed himself in opposition tot he Church, rather than trying to affect change from within as a faithful member.

 

Edited September 17, 2018 by Maestrophil

[TOmNossor]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

CFR on two counts:

That he encouraged ALL members to not sustain LDS leaders

That doing so would be in any recognizable sense of the word apostasy

 

Gray,

Here is where Sam Young lists his 11 reasons in 2016 for not sustaining the leadership if the CoJCoLDS & indiscriminately encourages others to also not sustain.

https://invisiblescubit.wordpress.com/2017/09/23/invitation-to-vote-opposed-together/

 

His vote is specifically, opposed to the statement, “Do you sustain … as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator.”  Not only did he vote opposed for 11 reasons (#6 being his current reason for being famous), and he encouraged others to also reject the statement. 

I can see how such a vote might not be apostasy from the concept/truth that  “Jesus Christ died for my sins,” but it sure seems to be apostasy from the concept/truth that “Pres. Monson (or Pres. Nelson) is a prophet of God.”  Do you disagree with this?

Here is the link.  I got nothing more for you CFR so hopefully you will be fully satisfied.

Charity, TOm

 

Edited September 17, 2018 by TOmNossor

[kllindley]

38 minutes ago, lostindc said:

It's a fairly safe assumption.

Actually, all the recent research I've read suggests the opposite. Would you provide some evidence that it's safe to assume all youth are having sex?