Sam Young is Excommunicated

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, lostindc said:

Quote

And yet even "trained and vetted" medical practitioners can engage in misconduct.

I would not be opposed to more training for bishops, though.  But Sam Young's tirade is an overwrought and unreasoned incitement to a moral panic and mass hysteria.  It's not a good faith effort to improve the safety and welfare of children in the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

It's good you concede that change is required in the way Church leaders are trained in handling worthiness interviews.  

"I would not be opposed" ≠ "{I} concede that change is required..."

9 minutes ago, lostindc said:

But Smac, it's working.  People are talking about Sam Young and his stance on worthiness interviews.  

I've never been a fan of this sort of the-ends-justify-the-means thinking.

9 minutes ago, lostindc said:

As of today, since Sam's excommunication ceremony, nearly three wards worth of members resigned from the Church.  

So the endgame is to encourage people to leave the Church.  That's the metric by which we determine if Sam Young's behavior is "working?"

9 minutes ago, lostindc said:

I predict the worthiness interview processes is going to dramatically change.  

The Church already made some fairly substantive changes. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"I would not be opposed" ≠ "{I} concede that change is required..."

I've never been a fan of this sort of the-ends-justify-the-means thinking.

So the endgame is to encourage people to leave the Church.  That's the metric by which we determine if Sam Young's behavior is "working?"

The Church already made some fairly substantive changes. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Why did it take Sam to make the changes? Makes me think of the two missionary sisters who were sexually assaulted on their missions. They were in different missions, but both had been treated awful afterward or treated not very well for a billion dollar church that didn't do research or have things in place to help victims like them. And even made it so they were in dangerous areas according to the missionaries side of the story. Such as not enough money to stay in safe areas. Well now the church is working on some things. But before the sisters complained publicly I wonder why they weren't in place. Also, one of the missionary sisters mentioned that there are now going to be training videos for missionaries, or they may already be in place. And the church kind of put forth that they'd already been inspired to do that before the missionaries went public. Why not decades before? Or years before? Why is the church not doing things right, before people rise up against or people have to bring it up? So much for inspiration.

[Gray]

26 minutes ago, Danzo said:

you know this.  how?

Cause I have seen the training video . . .

Just saying.

If they have one, it's relatively new. I attended several bishop's trainings.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

He failed to properly supervise his supporters.

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

This is interesting. Thanks for the answer. I admit I'm a bit perplexed how Sam Young could possibly be expected to "supervisor his supporters" which would include anyone who happened to agree with his argument. Are they in a club that meets down at the lodge? It is unreasonable to think that Sam Young could possibly control an unorganized group of his "supporters".

On the other hand, IF the person recording was a HC, who was invited and in place in the room at the invitation of the SP to perform a specific ecclesiastical duty, then it would seem very reasonable to assert that the SP failed to supervise his staff. Who had a supervisory position over the HC? The SP or Sam Young?

Thank for explaining that your common latin legal phrase doesn't exactly apply as one would expect in a "strictly legal sense".

The guilt by association is a political ploy. It doesn't matter to you if Sam Young had anything to do with this because an unsavory person with a loose affiliation with him did, therefore Sam must be guilty. That's called a smear campaign, and unless you have evidence, passing harsh judgment on Sam because Mike Norton did something illustrates the hypocrisy. Guilt by loose association. It's like blaming the president for something a republican senator did because they must be in on it together. To you, the mere fact that a recording exists is enough evidence to convict Sam Young of creating the recording.

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I used a three-word phrase borrowed from Latin that is heavily used in the American legal system, the definition of which requires no more than a five-second search on Google.

I did not provide a definition because I thought it would be a bit condescending, perhaps even an insult to the intelligence of the members of this board, to provide something that you could so easily find yourself.  I honestly did not think a three-word phrase would excite such angst and twitterpation.

I am now disabused these false notions.

What's next?  Limitations on words with more than three syllables?

🤨

-Smac

I looked it up with Google. As I said, I had already divined the meaning from context, but from Google, within a few seconds I  gained a clear understanding of this legal concept. I now feel my knowledge and vocabulary are richer as a result. 

I love the language for its breadth and nuance. Please do not dumb down your discourse for the sake of a couple of grumblers. 

Edited September 17, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

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.

What does that even mean?  The definition of integrity isn't a matter of projection.  It just is what it is.  If your actions don't match your professed beliefs (if your actions and your beliefs are not "integrated"), then you lack integrity.  

Also, I clearly said 'if' when I was speaking about the chance of a HC secretly recording the proceedings.  I didn't decide that anyone is living a double standard, I stated that if someone is pretending to be supportive of the church while working behind the scenes to undermine it then that person would be living a double life.  Again, the meaning of double life is pretty straightforward.  Anyone who deceives people by taking part in different sets of activities--one which they keep secret--is living a double life.

Quote

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.)

Fine, none of that changes the fact that doing so is deceptive.   

Quote

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.

While openly pretending that he did?  By giving secretly recorded material to a known enemy of the church?  Again, if that's what a HC did, then that shows a lack of integrity (his actions and his professed beliefs are contradictory) and is an act of keeping his behavior secret in order to deceive those who trusted him.  

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, lostindc said:

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

 

Yes, I think that Blue Dreams explanation most closely matches my own.  

Quote

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?

You stated that being raised mormon is what caused people to believe that God would use priesthood leaders.  Addressing my answer to that question by asking me to answer a question about whether or not we should follow weird practices because other people do is a great example of moving the goal posts.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, lostindc said:

I don't believe worthiness interviews are limited to sexual intercourse, do you?  

Plus, my article clearly answers the poster's claim.

No it really doesn't.

[Abulafia]

Updated figures from quit.mormon

31

queued

send to church

1777

queued

confirmation

3515

Here's some more conspiracy theories.  Maybe the Stake President leaked the audio recording himself...because he:- 

1. Disagreed with orders from higher authorities..

2. Was told to release the audio by higher authorities. 

It's an interesting listen. I'd love a step by step analysis of what was regarded as apostasy. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Updated figures from quit.mormon

31

queued

send to church

1777

queued

confirmation

3515

Here's some more conspiracy theories.  Maybe the Stake President leaked the audio recording himself...because he:- 

1. Disagreed with orders from higher authorities..

2. Was told to release the audio by higher authorities. 

It's an interesting listen. I'd love a step by step analysis of what was regarded as apostasy. 

Just wondering if you intend to respond to my CFR for your flat assertion that neither Sam Young nor his wife recorded the disciplinary council proceedings. 

[rockpond]

39 minutes ago, lostindc said:

It's good you concede that change is required in the way Church leaders are trained in handling worthiness interviews.  I am glad you believe change is something that this acceptable.  

But Smac, it's working.  People are talking about Sam Young and his stance on worthiness interviews.  As of today, since Sam's excommunication ceremony, nearly three wards worth of members resigned from the Church.  I predict the worthiness interview processes is going to dramatically change.  

But they need to wait long enough to make it seem like it had nothing to do with the guy they ex'd and everything to do with revelation.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is interesting. Thanks for the answer. I admit I'm a bit perplexed how Sam Young could possibly be expected to "supervisor his supporters" which would include anyone who happened to agree with his argument.

This assumes zero collusion.  We've already seen some collusion.  Mike Norton, a supporter of Sam Young, was not present at the council, which means that he colluded with either Sam Young or another of Sam Young's supporters to obtain the recording.

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Are they in a club that meets down at the lodge? It is unreasonable to think that Sam Young could possibly control an unorganized group of his "supporters".

Well, it sure would go a long way if he publicly called for the recording to be taken down.  Or if he disavowed it or distanced himself from Mike Norton's publication of it.

I'm not holding my breath.

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

On the other hand, IF the person recording was a HC, who was invited and in place in the room at the invitation of the SP to perform a specific ecclesiastical duty, then it would seem very reasonable to assert that the SP failed to supervise his staff. Who had a supervisory position over the HC? The SP or Sam Young?

Thank for explaining that your common latin legal phrase doesn't exactly apply as one would expect in a "strictly legal sense".

We're not in a court of law, so I thought it rather obvious that invoking a legal maxim here just might not be intended to be for its "strictly legal sense."

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The guilt by association is a political ploy.

So is using words like "political."

And no, it's not a ploy.  We have alread seen prima facie evidence of collusion among Sam Young's supporters. 

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It doesn't matter to you if Sam Young had anything to do with this because an unsavory person with a loose affiliation with him did, therefore Sam must be guilty.

Actually yes, it matters.  A bit.

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's called a smear campaign,

Meh.  Sam Young publicly promised he would not record the council.  A few days later, one of his supporters posts a recording of the council.  This necessarily entails some level of collusion involving Sam Young's supporters, which may or may not have involved Sam Young directly.  

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

and unless you have evidence, passing harsh judgment on Sam because Mike Norton did something illustrates the hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy?  Where have I secretly recorded a meeting after having promised not to?  Where have I gathered unto myself accolytes like Mike Norton, who have colluded to do on my behalf what I have promised not to do?

😀

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Guilt by loose association.

"Loose" association?  Sam Young either had a supporter/mole in the council room, or else recorded the meeting himself.  And then whoever recorded it sent it to another supporter of Mike Norton (a public supporter of Sam Young), who posted it online.

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's like blaming the president for something a republican senator did because they must be in on it together.

Except that here, there really are people who are "in on it together." 

• Sam Young + Mike Norton
• Secret Supporter of Sam Young + Supporter + Mike Norton
• Secret Supporter of Sam Young + Mike Norton

Pick one.  However you cut it, though, there was collusion.

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

To you, the mere fact that a recording exists is enough evidence to convict Sam Young of creating the recording.

Meh.  "Surmise" is a word.  It has a definition.

And lucky for you, it's even available in English!

😀

-Smac

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

So has a high council member has ever resigned from the church because they felt what the church was doing was wrong? Perhaps some high council members are much closer to resigning than what you are personally aware of.  There is more than one single possibility for how the recording was made and recorded.  Not sure how anyone can rule out everyone but the one person who has denied doing the recording.  

Some have suggested that Sam Young is being treated more harshly than Bishop.  Wouldn't this be an example of that? 

None of that changes anything though.  If your professed beliefs don't match your actions then you lack integrity.  If you are keeping some of your activities a secret and by doing so deceiving those around you, while engaging in contradictory activities, you're leading a double life.

If people decide that it's easier to be dishonest or deceptive than to be open about their disagreements or beliefs or feelings then that is their choice.  I can very appreciate that sometimes it could be a very hard choice.  But none of that means that the person isn't lacking in integrity or being deceptive in the life they are living.

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I looked it up with Google. As I said, I had already divined the meaning from context, but from Google, within a few seconds I  gained a clear understanding of this legal concept. I now feel my knowledge and vocabulary are richer as a result. 

I love the language for its breadth and nuance. Please do not dumb down your discourse for the sake of a couple of grumblers. 

But it's kind of like just posting a scripture passage with no explanation. You can go, look it up, read, and then divine how the writer thinks it applies, or the writer could simply state what he means clearly. Even in this particular case, Smac had to go back and clarify that the legal phrase wasn't being used in a strictly legal way. He just posted the phrase (like a scripture) as if the meaning is self-evident. It wasn't and he had to clarify what he really meant because the definition didn't fit neatly into what he wanted to say.

So if clarity is "dumbing down" then I'm all for it.

With Smac in particular, I surmise that he is using his latin legal phrases for a couple of reasons. 1- it's a diversion. Make people go look things up and guess what you mean by it. 2- he's using it as a device to claim a level of expertise to garner greater support. It's a constant reminder that he's a smart lawyer and therefore we should listen to him.  He is smart but he doesn't need to utilize rhetorical ploys to garner support. Just be clear and make a good point.

[Abulafia]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Just wondering if you intend to respond to my CFR for your flat assertion that neither Sam Young nor his wife recorded the disciplinary council proceedings. 

I trust the source. 

[Danzo]

29 minutes ago, Gray said:

If they have one, it's relatively new. I attended several bishop's trainings.

I best guess is that it was produced around 2010 ish.

[why me]

On 9/16/2018 at 10:13 PM, Abulafia said:

I'm not surprised. I am disappointed. My son said.. *Mum, you should be pleased.  This makes the church look really bad, and if they realise how bad they look, they might change.*

I told him I wasn't so hopeful of any change.  There are no checks and balances in the organisation. 

I think that no one really cares. The outside world is muted. And in the church, most have no idea who he is. I think at times we overplay such news as if the lds world is actually news.

Edited September 17, 2018 by why me

[california boy]

45 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

My comment was directed at Sam Young, not you personally. The allegation that excommunication is not realistic; however, it does fit with this guy's propaganda MO. 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[california boy]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

None of that changes anything though.  If your professed beliefs don't match your actions then you lack integrity.  If you are keeping some of your activities a secret and by doing so deceiving those around you, while engaging in contradictory activities, you're leading a double life.

If people decide that it's easier to be dishonest or deceptive than to be open about their disagreements or beliefs or feelings then that is their choice.  I can very appreciate that sometimes it could be a very hard choice.  But none of that means that the person isn't lacking in integrity or being deceptive in the life they are living.

I am really addressing those who are making statements directed specifically to Sam Young, when they have absolutely no proof to allegations that he was the one doing the taping.  Don't you see that jumping to that conclusion is problematic?

I do have a question.  It has been said that everyone in the room agreed to not take the DC.  Do we know that as a fact?  I haven't seen an actual reference for that belief.

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This assumes zero collusion.  We've already seen some collusion.  Mike Norton, a supporter of Sam Young, was not present at the council, which means that he colluded with either Sam Young or another of Sam Young's supporters to obtain the recording.

You surmise collusion on Sam's part. That's all. Yes, someone recorded and gave it to Mike Norton. That could have been Sam Young or his wife, but it also could have been any of the 16 church officials in the room.

Well, it sure would go a long way if he publicly called for the recording to be taken down.  Or if he disavowed it or distanced himself from Mike Norton's publication of it.

I'm not holding my breath.

I agree. I would like it if he disavowed but it would frankly be hard for him to do since he stated before the council even began that he wasn't concerned about whether or not the church recorded the council. It would be hard to come out opposed if a member of the church delegation actually did record it. But either way, the recording does nothing to help Sam Young. If anything it hurts him. So again, asking for something to be taken down, after he said he didn't mind if the church recorded, especially if it's a recording that hurts his cause, would seem quite self-serving.

We're not in a court of law, so I thought it rather obvious that invoking a legal maxim here just might not be intended to be for its "strictly legal sense."

That makes sense. But if you drop your latin legal phrase, that we have to look up to understand, but it's not being used in a strictly legal way that matches the definition, you may want to show how the phrase applies. Assuming a phrase is self-evident to your non-strictly legal usage, is a bad idea.

So is using words like "political."

Not really. Stating something is political is descriptive. It doesn't even require a google translation.

And no, it's not a ploy.  We have alread seen prima facie evidence of collusion among Sam Young's supporters.

Another latin phrase. Luckily I knew that one   Thinking something is self-evident at first glance is hardly evidence of collusion. It can just as easily prove your bias.

Actually yes, it matters.  A bit.

Yet you are unwilling to accept that possibility, instead relying on your bias that you call prima facie evidence.

Meh.  Sam Young publicly promised he would not record the council.  A few days later, one of his supporters posts a recording of the council.  This necessarily entails some level of collusion involving Sam Young's supporters, which may or may not have involved Sam Young directly.  

But whether or not Sam Young was involved is a big deal. You seem to be sticking to guilt by association, stating that he didn't "supervise" all of his supporters (as if that is possible), therefore he must have done. I wish I knew a good latin phrase to describe how silly that assumption is.

Hypocrisy?  Where have I secretly recorded a meeting after having promised not to?  Where have I gathered unto myself accolytes like Mike Norton, who have colluded to do on my behalf what I have promised not to do?

I don't know, but I surmise you may have.   But I readily admit I have no evidence that you have done so. Similar to how you have no evidence Sam did so.

😀

"Loose" association?  Sam Young either had a supporter/mole in the council room, or else recorded the meeting himself.  And then whoever recorded it sent it to another supporter of Mike Norton (a public supporter of Sam Young), who posted it online.

For Sam to have a mole in the room he would need to be aware that someone was recording. This is an assumption on your part. If Sam was unaware the guilt of recording rests with the individual who recorded. IF the recorder was placed in the room by the SP, then the SP is responsible for not adequately supervising his people.

Except that here, there really are people who are "in on it together." 

• Sam Young + Mike Norton
• Secret Supporter of Sam Young + Supporter + Mike Norton
• Secret Supporter of Sam Young + Mike Norton

Yep, I see that as a good possibility and if that's the case, Sam is guilty and his integrity is intact, despite your claims otherwise.

Pick one.  However you cut it, though, there was collusion.

Did I ever say otherwise? Did I claim there was no collusion? No. I claimed that there is no evidence that Sam Young was involved in any collusion and you have to admit that is true. But you knocked down that straw man like a boss.

Meh.  "Surmise" is a word.  It has a definition.

And lucky for you, it's even available in English!

Good line.  Made me chuckle.

😀

-Smac

 

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Cool. Were their phones confiscated like his?

One doesn't need a phone.  I have a digital audio recorder similar to this.  Sometimes I use it to record myself when I give a talk in church, so I can review how I did, for future improvement. Most times I am disappointed in my performance, unfortunately.

 

 

[Avatar4321]

29 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Updated figures from quit.mormon

31

queued

send to church

1777

queued

confirmation

3515

Here's some more conspiracy theories.  Maybe the Stake President leaked the audio recording himself...because he:- 

1. Disagreed with orders from higher authorities..

2. Was told to release the audio by higher authorities. 

It's an interesting listen. I'd love a step by step analysis of what was regarded as apostasy. 

Again, why should we believe any of these numbers?

[Stargazer]

2 hours 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? 

You may be conversing with just such a critic, who may very well be, or have been a critic on a high council.  So it might be more common than you think.

[Stargazer]

2 hours 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. 

Some of the people here seem to be leading just such a double life.

[Stargazer]

2 hours 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

Heaven forbid!