Sam Young is Excommunicated

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, rockpond 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

I'm okay with stating reasonable surmises.  I thought you were using that as a response to a CFR. 

I was.

27 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But now I see that you are restating your original assertion as a surmise. 

I am.

HJW is still not happy, though.

27 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think that's a fair way to have a discussion here.

Same here.  We can only go with the available evidence.  From then on, it's reasoning, analysis, deductions, inferences, surmises, educated guesswork, etc.

My surmise is that Sam Young or one of his supporters recorded the council and sent it to Mike Norton - another supporter of Sam Young - to post online.  Mike Norton is the firewall.  Sam Young can have some semblance of plausible deniability, I guess.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JAHS]

On his website Sam states the following about the disciplinary council:
"Although, I don’t have a recording of the proceedings, I do have the presentations that both my wife and I delivered. "

If we take him at his word it may have been someone else who did the recording. Or he received the recording after making this statement. Or he is lying about it.

He also said the following in a letter to his stake president:
"You have me sign a non-disclosure agreement.  I am not afraid of any of the contents of this court being revealed to the world.  Are you afraid of how the church would look if the proceedings were shared to the world?  You are not protecting me.  I don’t need protecting.  But, I’m bowing in submission to your requirement to sign.  I’m okay signing.  Recording our meetings has never been my method anyway."

 

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Quote

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.

But you do have Google.

Sheesh.

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

And maybe you could exert five seconds of effort to copy and past "res ipsa loquitur" into a search engine and hit "Enter."

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Understanding is more important that tossing out pretentious latin phrases.

Res ipsa loquitur is a well-known legal doctrine.  It would have taken you less time to copy and paste it into a search engine that to grouse about you not speaking Latin.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

My surmise is that Sam Young or one of his supporters recorded the council and sent it to Mike Norton - another supporter of Sam Young - to post online.  Mike Norton is the firewall.  Sam Young can have some semblance of plausible deniability, I guess.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well, in that case I agree that the most likely scenario is that Sam or one of his supporters (who could very well be in the HC) made the recording.

[Avatar4321]

11 minutes ago, lostindc said:

So the Shepherds held worthiness interviews with youth?

When they are charged to verify worthiness, yes

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You seem to be implying this is necessarily a bad thing. Are you? 

I'm confident that you as an educated man know what Reductio ad Absurdum is, but since you are pretending not to know, and for the benefit of those who don't, it is an attempt to prove (or disprove) something by showing how absurd the result would be.

You went from the original objective of changing or eliminating youth interviews to eliminating all worthiness interviews

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So you believe the Church of Jesus Christ should not insist on worthiness standards or moral cleanliness at all then.

Which would lead to

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Should adulterers, pedophiles, sexual predators, criminals, etc., be entitled to have any privilege in the Church without anyone giving a second thought to their behavior? 

Adulterers, pedophiles, sexual predators, criminals, etc., can already gain access to any privilege in the Church just by lying in the worthiness interview.

Regardless of what system is used to establish worthiness, members and leaders have to pay attention and report possible dangers. This is why the Church has been making a lot of changes (windows in doors, 2 adults per class, etc.). It's more difficult now for a bad person to gain access to potential victims. If the bad person happens to rise to the level of bishop, what checks are in place to prevent abuse?

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But you do have Google.

Sheesh.

And maybe you could exert five seconds of effort to copy and past "res ipsa loquitur" into a search engine and hit "Enter."

Res ipsa loquitur is a well-known legal doctrine.  It would have taken you less time to copy and paste it into a search engine that to grouse about you not speaking Latin.

Thanks,

-Smac

You realize we're not all attorney here, right? This isn't the first time. You've dropped other latin phrases. There are a couple of others who do it as well. Are you trying to remind everyone you're a lawyer or is it some kind of diversionary tactic? I could copy, paste to look up the translation, or you could just stick to English. Honestly, for ease of conversation on this board I hope everyone sticks to English so we don't have to google translate what should be a simple statement. Seems easy enough.

Quote

Res ipsa loquitur

In the common law of torts, res ipsa loquitur is a doctrine that infers negligence from the very nature of an accident or injury, in the absence of direct evidence on how any defendant behaved. Although modern formulations differ by jurisdiction, common law originally stated that the accident must satisfy the necessary elements of negligence, which are duty, breach of duty, causation, and injury.

BTW- If someone else recorded the proceedings with out Sam Young knowledge, what is his negligence? Or are you suggesting the SP was negligent?

Edited September 17, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[Avatar4321]

47 minutes ago, lostindc said:

It's a fairly safe assumption.

It’s safe to assume 12-13 year olds are having sex?

[bluebell]

34 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

"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. the level of integrity of some members, not rates of disaffection. 

I think a lot of us are overestimating the level of integrity of disaffected members, not underestimating the number of them.  I’m very saddened by the new revelation, if what you are saying is true.

But I stand by my use of the term double life. Think of everything that Mike Norton stands for and everything he does against the church. It is reasonable to conclude that any temple recommend holding member in good standing who supports Norton and covertly acts as a spy against the church is leading a double life. I can understand why some would want to eschew such terms but it’s accurate even if it’s unflattering. 

Edited September 17, 2018 by bluebell

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Quote

But you do have Google.

Sheesh.

And maybe you could exert five seconds of effort to copy and past "res ipsa loquitur" into a search engine and hit "Enter."

Res ipsa loquitur is a well-known legal doctrine.  It would have taken you less time to copy and paste it into a search engine that to grouse about you not speaking Latin.

Thanks,

-Smac

You realize we're not all attorney here, right?

Yes, I realize that.

But you're a reasonably intelligent adult.  And you have had multiple opportunities to sort out the meaning of res ipsa loquitur.  And instead of exercising the barest modicum of effort, you are griping about the use of a phrase that has a readily-accessible definition.

Quote

This isn't the first time. You've dropped other latin phrases.

Gee.  It sounds like you've got a Smac97 obsession.

Hic videtur superfluum.

Quote

There are a couple of others who do it as well. Are you trying to remind everyone you're a lawyer or is it some kind of diversionary tactic?

Non ego conanti est historia succingi.

Et nunc itaque ego leniter irridet tua querimonia.  😀

Quote

I could copy, paste to look up the translation, or you could just stick to English.

And again, res ipsa loquitur is a legal doctrine.  The doctrine's name is literally in Latin.

And again, you could have found the definition in ten seconds.  Instead you are griping about it.  Again.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 17, 2018 by smac97

[lostindc]

15 minutes ago, kllindley said:

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?

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/planned-parenthood-new-cdc-report-on-u-s-teens-sexual-behavior-illustrates-adolescents-continued-need-for-sex-education-and-effective-birth-control

 

Your turn

[bluebell]

27 minutes 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.

There are billions of people who haven't been raised in the church, and who have never been members, who also believe that God works through priesthood leaders.

The belief stems from a reasonable interpretation of scripture.  It doesn't come from the Mormon church.

[lostindc]

11 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

When they are charged to verify worthiness, yes

Can you show me in the scriptures where this occurs?  You made the claim.

For me, I can't imagine an all-knowing God requiring a middle-man to know the details of someone's sexual activities.

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think a lot of us are overestimating the level of integrity of disaffected members, not underestimating the number of them.

I’m very saddened by the new revelation, if what you are saying is true.

But I stand by my use of the term double life. Think of everything that Mike Norton stands for and everything he does against the church. 

It is reasonable to conclude that any temple recommend holding member in good standing who supports Norton and covertly acts as a spy against the church is leading a double life. 

I can understand why some would want to eschew such terms but it’s accurate even if it’s unflattering. 

Yeah, I've got nothing positive to say about Mike Norton. He's not my problem. I'm suggesting that all of the rush to judgment about Sam Young's involvement is just that, a rush to judgment. There are other reasonable explanations for the recording.

Still, I've yet to hear anyone explain why this recording is a bad thing for the church and a good thing for Sam Young. It seems quite the opposite to me. In all of this I haven't seen any evidence that Sam Young lacks integrity. People can certainly disagree with his position and even his tactics, but I haven't seen anything to suggest he isn't sincere and honest. But Smac and others accuse his of failing the test of honesty and integrity with no evidence to suggest he had a part in this. I don't see how Mike Norton's involvement implicates Sam. In fact I see it as counterproductive and counter intuitive based on the way Sam has done things up to this point.

I can't see why Sam would hide behind Mike Norton but I can understand why a HC might.

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

I got the meaning from context. And if I hadn’t, well, the definition is just a quick Google search away. And I would have learned something in the process. 

Your post really does strike me as gratuitous grumbling. I would hope the educated among us would not feel the need to dumb down their communication just to appeal to the least common denominator in willingness to look something up. 

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think a lot of us are overestimating the level of integrity of disaffected members, not underestimating the number of them.

I’m very saddened by the new revelation, if what you are saying is true.

But I stand by my use of the term double life. Think of everything that Mike Norton stands for and everything he does against the church. 

It is reasonable to conclude that any temple recommend holding member in good standing who supports Norton and covertly acts as a spy against the church is leading a double life. 

I can understand why some would want to eschew such terms but it’s accurate even if it’s unflattering. 

We don't know who recorded it nor the chain of custody until it got to NNN.

Rather than deciding the someone is living a double-life, I think it is important (for all of us) that we don't project our religious experience onto others.

There is a broad belief spectrum in Mormonism.  Included in that spectrum is perceived allegiance to authority.  I don't think it is hard to imagine a member of the HC in Sam's home stake being a supporter of his.  That HC member could have been in disagreement with the actions being taken against Sam but felt powerless to do anything about it.  So, they made the decision to record the proceedings.  (I am not supporting this decision, especially if they had signed a document stating they wouldn't.)

I don't think this means that the following Sunday when they stood at the pulpit of their assigned ward that they didn't have a testimony of whatever they were teaching that day.  It just means that they didn't have a testimony of what was happening to Sam.

[lostindc]

Just now, bluebell said:

There are billions of people who haven't been raised in the church, and who have never been members, who also believe that God works through priesthood leaders.

The belief stems from a reasonable interpretation of scripture.  It doesn't come from the Mormon church.

So you're okay with rolling the dice on the LDS youth and allowing for worthiness interviews to continue as is?

Yes, lots of people like having a middle-man between God and them.  Lots of people also do some extremely unusual practices in the name of religious beliefs, should we follow that too?

[lostindc]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I got the meaning from context. And if I hadn’t, well, the definition is just a quick Google search away. And I would have learned something in the process. 

Your post really does strike me as gratuitous grumbling. I would hope the educated among us would not feel the need to dumb down their communication just to appeal to the least common denominator in willingness to look something up. 

lol, what?

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, lostindc said:

Can you show me in the scriptures where this occurs?  You made the claim.

For me, I can't imagine an all-knowing God requiring a middle-man to know the details of someone's sexual activities.

This is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We don’t hold to the sola scriptura dogma. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, lostindc said:

lol, what?

Your question makes no sense. 

[Avatar4321]

5 minutes ago, lostindc said:

Can you show me in the scriptures where this occurs?  You made the claim.

For me, I can't imagine an all-knowing God requiring a middle-man to know the details of someone's sexual activities.

I’ll have to do it later, my search options are limited.

God isn’t limited by what you can imagine 

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

BTW- If someone else recorded the proceedings with out Sam Young knowledge, what is his negligence?

He failed to properly supervise his supporters.

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Or are you suggesting the SP was negligent?

No.  As I understand it, the SP had Sam Young sign a document agreeing not to record the council.  It's axiomatic that the other participants would know not to record the council and send it to one of the most virulent anti-Mormons alive today.

In any event, res ipsa loquitur in this instance applies in a broader not-necessarily-in-a-strictly-legal sense.  A recording exists of Sam Young's council and has been posted online by one of the worse anti-Mormons alive, who is also a supporter of Sam Young.  The thing speaks for itself.  Unethical conduct happened.  And the person who did it is Sam Young or someone who supports him and was acting on his behalf.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

21 minutes ago, TOmNossor said:

 

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

 

 

Thank you for the link, it's appreciated. I've heard a lot of people claim that Sam was trying to get people to vote opposed. Here's what he actually says:

Quote

I invite you to join me.  Not necessarily in voting opposed, as I will be.  But, in voting period.  You can participate in 3 ways:

 

Quote

Of course, I don’t oppose the church, the apostles or the prophet.  Rather, I disapprove of various policies and major decisions that have never been presented as the Law of Common Consent dictates.  I use the word disapprove as that’s the phrasing which Jesus used in the revelation found in D&C 124:144.

 

Quote

All my best wishes to everyone who votes in this conference.  Whether you vote in approval or disapproval, I completely support your right and privilege as a member of the church.  Your opinions are important and valid.  Jesus is counting on us to express them honestly and openly.

If this constitutes apostasy, common consent has become a farce, and the word apostasy has no meaning.

 

 

 

[california boy]

40 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?

Give each youth a list of the questions.  As them to answer each question and sign the form.  If they do not turn in the completed form, they will not be allowed to participate.  If they have any questions they should talk to their parents.  As an alternative, they can ask for a meeting with the bishop.

The requirement to enter the temple is worthiness before the Lord, not worthiness before the bishop.

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, lostindc said:

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/planned-parenthood-new-cdc-report-on-u-s-teens-sexual-behavior-illustrates-adolescents-continued-need-for-sex-education-and-effective-birth-control

 

Your turn

This doesn't say that all teens are having sex.  It says that more than half (probably fifty-something % ) of teens have had sex by age 18.  More than half is WAY less than 'all'.