Sam Young is Excommunicated

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, Stargazer said:

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.

 

 

So you're suggesting that the SP was cautious enough to have Sam Young sign an agreement not to record and then confiscate his phone, but was too inept to actually confiscate a recorder like this one? Interesting argument.

If I were the SP I would be very concerned about the leaked audio because it shows that he failed to successfully manage the process and it's worse yet if one of his own people made the recording after he failed to confiscate their devices like he did Sam's.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

If you read some of the comments, it appears the name "Alma" was used by whoever submitted the recording.....maybe that's a hint?

I doubt it.

Here's an interesting thing: Disciplinary councils usually seek a unanimous sustaining vote from the high council and the members of the stake presidency.  If it was one of these people that did it, then did he cast a sustaining or non-sustaining vote re: excommunication?  If he cast a non-sustaining vote, then the stake president might have an idea as to who the recording person was.  And if he cast a sustaining vote, then was his vote deceitful?

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

And just read this:

I know there are leaders in my ward and stake who supported what Sam Young's cause was.  Some may disagree with his most recent hunger strike, etc., but they support what he stood for and did not like how the leaders were treating him. 

Yes, the bamboo splinters under the fingernails were bit much.

🤨

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I tend to believe Sam if he stated that neither he nor his wife recorded the court. 

I tend to not want to give him the benefit of the doubt.  I have a hard time believing that his supporters colluded to record and publish the council proceedings, and that he knew nothing about that collusion.

It's possible, but unlikely IMO.

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Were there any witnesses there who Sam brought with him?  Or was it just the SP, High Counselors, Clerk along with Sam?

Dunno.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

33 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

I trust the source. 

So can I take this, then, as your refusal to answer a CFR? 

[california boy]

56 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Uh oh!  Latin!  Our two resident self-appointed arbiters on proper-use-of-non-English-phrases (HappyJackWagon and California Boy) are no doubt going to pounce on you for daring to deviate from the common tongue.

Right?

Right?

😀

-Smac

 I think EVERYONE should stop this attorney latin lawyer jargon trend and just say what you want to say.  It doesn't make anyone's' post more important or their points less valid to use English to make your points

But hey, I am just one poster here that would rather use Maori to reinforce the importance of what I write.  I am sure after two posts everyone is already annoyed by that idea.  

 

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

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

I don't put much stock in things said under pseudonyms on a message board.  People vent sometimes, or they play a bit of a devil's advocate when hashing out their own feelings/beliefs.  I think that labels just as 'leading a double life' are only useful in real life.

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon 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.

Not precisely.  The existence of collusion is pretty much established.  Mike Norton wasn't in the council room, so he received the recording from someone else.  That necessarily means collusion, IMO.

Whether Sam was aware of or participating in this collusion is an open question.

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Either way, there was collusion amongst Sam Young and his supporters, or amongst his supporters.

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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 wouldn't be hard.  For pete's sake, the guy starved himself for three weeks.  He would disavow it by saying as much.

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Much like many of the other things he has done.

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

And saying nothing in response to it seems like he is ratifying the conduct taken on his behalf (assuming the colluders lacked his consent/participation).

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

The evidence of collusion is pretty strong.  Mike Norton wasn't in the room, so he colluded with someone else to get the recording.

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Noting that Mike Norton was not in the council room is not "bias."

Noting that whoever made the recording colluded with Mike Norton is not "bias."

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Sorta.

Respondeat superior and all that.

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

I have evidence that someone colluded with Mike Norton.

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

"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.

Or not.  Co-conspirators can be found guilty of conspiratorial misconduct, even if they do not know each other.

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is an assumption on your part. If Sam was unaware the guilt of recording rests with the individual who recorded.

For the most part, I agree with you.

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Again: "surmise."  It's a word.  It has a definition.  That definition is readily available.

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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

Did I ever say otherwise? Did I claim there was no collusion? No.

Great!  So we have established that there was collusion of some sort involving one or more supporters of Sam Young.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think EVERYONE should stop this attorney latin lawyer jargon trend and just say what you want to say.  

Res ipsa loquitur is a very useful phrase.  It encapsulates a complex and nuanced concept into three words.  

And since we all have acces to the Internet, I don't think "dumbing it down" is necessary.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

 

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

 I am sure after two posts everyone is already annoyed by that idea.  

 

I love it myself, but perhaps I am unusual.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Not precisely.  The existence of collusion is pretty much established.  Mike Norton wasn't in the council room, so he received the recording from someone else.  That necessarily means collusion, IMO.

Whether Sam was aware of or participating in this collusion is an open question.

Either way, there was collusion amongst Sam Young and his supporters, or amongst his supporters.

It wouldn't be hard.  For pete's sake, the guy starved himself for three weeks.  He would disavow it by saying as much.

Much like many of the other things he has done.

And saying nothing in response to it seems like he is ratifying the conduct taken on his behalf (assuming the colluders lacked his consent/participation).

The evidence of collusion is pretty strong.  Mike Norton wasn't in the room, so he colluded with someone else to get the recording.

Noting that Mike Norton was not in the council room is not "bias."

Noting that whoever made the recording colluded with Mike Norton is not "bias."

Sorta.

Respondeat superior and all that.

I have evidence that someone colluded with Mike Norton.

Or not.  Co-conspirators can be found guilty of conspiratorial misconduct, even if they do not know each other.

For the most part, I agree with you.

Again: "surmise."  It's a word.  It has a definition.  That definition is readily available.

Great!  So we have established that there was collusion of some sort involving one or more supporters of Sam Young.

Thanks,

-Smac

Seems like a solid, though circular, argument:  If I have understood you correctly, anyone in that room who recorded the SP and then initiated a chain of custody that eventually led to NNN must be a supporter of Sam Young by virtue of having done such a thing.

Therefore, the recording was done by a supporter of Sam Young.

I'm okay with that.  It was most likely recorded by Sam Young.

Or just maybe... it was recorded by someone who opposes Sam Young but knew if he anonymously leaked it to NNN, it would get posted online and many would believe that Sam Young broke his promise to not record the DC.   Yay for conspiracy theories!

[rockpond]

So presumably the person who made the recording or leaked the recording took on the name "Alma", right?

Has anyone given thought that it could have been a HC who saw himself as Alma (the elder) sitting among the wicked priests of King Noah?

And this HC saw Sam Young as Abinadi?

 

If this has been brought up already, I apologize.  This thread is moving too fast for me!

Edited September 17, 2018 by rockpond

[Scott Lloyd]

59 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

No, it’s not a bit like posting a scriture reference with no explanation. Some explanatory context would have to be present for this to be a proper analogy. Please note that Smac always uses his legal terms with ample context regarding their application. In fact if anyone on this board gives thorough explanation, it is Smac — so much so that some critics fuss about the length of his posts. 

Your bit about dumbing down being “clarity” is a straw man. No one here provides more clarity than Smac. 

I think you are misjudging him about his reasons for using legal terms. It is quite normal to draw upon one’s personal background or expertise to make a point. I, myself, from time to time use journalistic principles (such as when I deplore out-of-context quotation or unattributed citation or non-factual gossip) to make a point in a discussion or debate. 

Edited September 17, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[JAHS]

26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So you're suggesting that the SP was cautious enough to have Sam Young sign an agreement not to record and then confiscate his phone, but was too inept to actually confiscate a recorder like this one? Interesting argument.

If I were the SP I would be very concerned about the leaked audio because it shows that he failed to successfully manage the process and it's worse yet if one of his own people made the recording after he failed to confiscate their devices like he did Sam's.

What is the stake president supposed to do, frisk each one of the participants to make sure they didn't have anything on them? If one of the council members was covertly going to record the incident do you really think he would agree to hand over any recording device he had or even admit he had one? 

[Abulafia]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So can I take this, then, as your refusal to answer a CFR? 

What kind of reference are you expecting here, Scott? 

[ALarson]

56 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

I trust the source. 

I think all you have to do on here now is characterize it as a "surmise" and you're good to go when responding to a CFR.

Edited September 17, 2018 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, california boy said:

 I think EVERYONE should stop this attorney latin lawyer jargon trend and just say what you want to say.  It doesn't make anyone's' post more important or their points less valid to use English to make your points

But hey, I am just one poster here that would rather use Maori to reinforce the importance of what I write.  I am sure after two posts everyone is already annoyed by that idea.  

 

You’ve made your point repeatedly. Alas, you have failed to sustain it persuasively. 

[Abulafia]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think all you have to do on here now is "characterize it as a surmise" and you're good to go when responding to a CFR.

Ah ok. I surmise. 

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

What kind of reference are you expecting here, Scott? 

Should be the same standard that is expected of smac when he responds to an issued CFR.  Isn't that right, Scott?

[HappyJackWagon]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I doubt it.

Here's an interesting thing: Disciplinary councils usually seek a unanimous sustaining vote from the high council and the members of the stake presidency.  If it was one of these people that did it, then did he cast a sustaining or non-sustaining vote re: excommunication?  If he cast a non-sustaining vote, then the stake president might have an idea as to who the recording person was.  And if he cast a sustaining vote, then was his vote deceitful?

Yes, the bamboo splinters under the fingernails were bit much.

🤨

I tend to not want to give him the benefit of the doubt.  I have a hard time believing that his supporters colluded to record and publish the council proceedings, and that he knew nothing about that collusion.

It's possible, but unlikely IMO.

Dunno.

Thanks,

-Smac

It would take guts for a HC to oppose the decision of the SP after he accused, prosecuted, and judged a man as an apostate for failing to sustain priesthood leaders.

The SP makes the decision and then the HC generally has the opportunity to sustain the decision. What does sustaining mean? Does it mean they agree with the decision or does it mean they agree that the SP has the authority to make the decision and they sustain him in his calling? If the latter, it's very easy for someone to sustain the SP with a vote while disagreeing with the decision.

Quote

JAHS- What is the stake president supposed to do, frisk each one of the participants to make sure they didn't have anything on them? If one of the council members was covertly going to record the incident do you really think he would agree to hand over any recording device he had or even admit he had one? 

Probably not, but were they even asked to hand over any devices? If not, there was a clear double standard. If it turns out a HC had full access to record because he wasn't even asked to turn over his device, then yeah, that shows the SP didn't proceed fairly and it caught up with him.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think all you have to do on here now is "characterize it as a surmise" and you're good to go when responding to a CFR.

Of course, that is false. He/she flatly stared his/her claim as fact and then refused to identify a source for it, saying only that he/she trust the source. That’s not the same as stating an opinion or surmising something. 

Unless the CFR is answered fairly soon, I intend to report him/her to the moderation team. 

[Stargazer]

29 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So you're suggesting that the SP was cautious enough to have Sam Young sign an agreement not to record and then confiscate his phone, but was too inept to actually confiscate a recorder like this one? Interesting argument.

If I were the SP I would be very concerned about the leaked audio because it shows that he failed to successfully manage the process and it's worse yet if one of his own people made the recording after he failed to confiscate their devices like he did Sam's.

I am not suggesting anything.  I was just saying that it doesn't take a phone.  I also have a small video recorder, about 1 inch cubed, that can record up to 32 GB of video/audio. It is not obviously a recorder of any type.  I don't expect that the SP is going to be giving every person a head-to-foot frisk to confiscate items like this.  I suspect that the SP was relying upon the personal honor of each participant.  Which was obviously a false reliance.  It doesn't take ineptitude.  All it takes is a determined effort to break faith, then the will and the way opens up, and all it takes is finding the means.  Means are out there. 

But regardless of the above, someone could very well have planted a bug in the HC meeting room.  Then it might not have been anyone in the room, and no collusion would be required.  Where there's a will there's a way.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Ah ok. I surmise. 

So you were lying when you said you “trust the source” because there, in fact, is no source. Correct? 

Or are you withdrawing the fact claim because you cannot/will not identify its source? Inquiring minds want to know. 

Edited September 17, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think all you have to do on here now is "characterize it as a surmise" and you're good to go when responding to a CFR.

Incidentally, a surmise is the same as an opinion. It is not a statement of fact. So if you intend to do that you rob your own statement of its verity. You can’t have it both ways. 

[cinepro]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

But I stopped him before he described it (I did not want to know!),

If not for any other reason, I've joked with my wife that I could never be a Bishop because I just could not handle anyone confessing to me.  I'd have my hands over my ears yelling "Don't tell me!  I don't want to know! LA-LA-LA I can't hear you!" 

Whatever the opposite of a gossip is, I'm it, because I just don't want to know other peoples' business.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So you were lying when you said you “trust the source” because there, in fact, is no source. Correct? 

She probably surmises it's the truth because she trusts the source.

People do that all the time.  

Edited September 17, 2018 by ALarson

[Stargazer]

27 minutes ago, california boy said:

 I think EVERYONE should stop this attorney latin lawyer jargon trend and just say what you want to say.  It doesn't make anyone's' post more important or their points less valid to use English to make your points

But hey, I am just one poster here that would rather use Maori to reinforce the importance of what I write.  I am sure after two posts everyone is already annoyed by that idea.  

 

I rather enjoy the Latin.  I like checking Wikipedia for what it means, which generally leads to me to learning something new about the law and the courts.