Calm Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 (edited) Quote Has anyone else noticed that a lot of posts in this thread are focused on killing the messenger instead of the message? This includes an excessive focus on trying to read into Sam Young’s mind and analyze his actions in order critique his motives and methods. Why are we not focused on Sam’ message and then reducing his message to help us understand if his message is valid? He has been doing this for months, years if you measure since he included this in his list. If someone has been paying attention to him that long and still not processed his message, it may never happen. For those who have, they may not feel the need to keep rehashing it. Edited September 17, 2018 by Calm 3
rockpond Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 21 minutes ago, Danzo said: If the recording shuts ends when Sam leaves, it would seem more likely that Sam, or one of his party is recording. If the recording continues after he leaves it seems more likely that it was a member of the high council doing the recording. The recording is of the first 15 minutes. That isn't when Sam left, that's when Sam was to begin his rebuttal (which was 45 minutes long, per Sam). 3
rockpond Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 9 minutes ago, smac97 said: Yes. Yes. That is my suspicious as well. So where's the circular argument? Too clever by half, methinks. Thanks, -Smac Ugh... that was a bad mistake on my part: I meant to have written that it was most likely recorded by "a supporter of Sam Young" not "by Sam Young". Your circular argument was that the act of recording the DC makes one a supporter of Sam Young. Therefore, a supporter of Sam Young recorded the DC.
rockpond Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 54 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don’t think Smac ever intended to convey that it was anything other than his opinion, and when asked, he readily clarified it as such. While still making comments about Sam's lack of integrity for having recorded the DC. 3
kllindley Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 3 hours ago, Gray said: https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/why-do-we-take-sexual-history/2005-10 Your source clearly states that not all physicians are trained in taking a sexual history. I know many mental health clinicians are not. I don't have any reason to believe that nurses or other technicians are more universally trained. That's my point. People freak out about the idea of an "untrained" Bishop asking these questions, when there are more (by orders of magnitude) untrained professionals out there doing the same thing. If it's traumatic to have the questions asked in one case, it should be equally traumatic in the other. 2
kllindley Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 52 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I wonder if hearing something, a statement, a rumor, whatever from a third party qualifies as "evidence". You seem to be suggesting that Albufia can't surmise something because of hearsay. It seems to me that someone could hear something and surmise it to be true without having any solid evidence. Scott, are you suggesting that someone who is not in possession of hard evidence cannot surmise the truth of a claim? Well, you sure hammered me barely a month ago for doing this. Is this valid just for claims you like? 1
Stargazer Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 53 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: It's true. I don't know the SP is inept but I surmise he might be since he failed to stop a recording he seemed intent on stopping. Not really. I wonder if the SP had anyone look for devices in the room. If he's that concerned about recording, then maybe that should be done. It's on his turf so he's responsible for ensuring confidentiality. Allowing for a listening device to remain in the room doesn't prove he is not inept. But I agree, this whole thing is getting silly. I don't expect SP to do a bug sweep, but I do expect him to hold all participants to the same expectations. And I expect that scurrilous persons will do scurrilous things.
Stargazer Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 51 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Just the high councilors. I wish we had more choices that just the "Love" icon. Like the LOL one. Here you go:
kllindley Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 3 hours ago, kllindley said: So you're okay just rolling the dice on all those youth meeting alone with therapists and technicians, many of whom do not even have bachelor's degrees. Even in light of hundreds of cases of abuse that are documented each year? What training do you think medical providers have in asking sexual questions? 3 hours ago, kllindley said: You asked about the decrease and the years. You clearly either did not read or failed to comprehend. On the one hand you want to be able to make a "safe assumption" that youth are sexually active. On the other hand you want to be able to dispense with any questions about worthiness for these same youth. To me the logical extension is that you don't believe premarital sexual activity is sin. I can respect that. Many people agree with you. It just seems odd to try to pressure an entire religion to abandon their beliefs and agree with you. 34 minutes ago, lostindc said: Has anyone else noticed that a lot of posts in this thread are focused on killing the messenger instead of the message? This includes an excessive focus on trying to read into Sam Young’s mind and analyze his actions in order critique his motives and methods. Why are we not focused on Sam’ message and then reducing his message to help us understand if his message is valid? Maybe because when we do engage the message, you don't engage back other than to dismiss without answering questions. 2
Stargazer Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 52 minutes ago, ALarson said: Well anything is possible regarding why they chose that name. I doubt anyone believes the SP is a "very, very wicked man", but there may have been disagreement or at least maybe a symbolic gesture of support for Sam. Everything is just guessing or surmising right now regarding all of that. Yes, but when we get going we can sure generate a lot of text guessing or surmising about something we know little factually about. I don't know why I've been trying to follow this thread so closely. Perhaps I have a masochist streak I wasn't aware of... 1
Stargazer Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 47 minutes ago, lostindc said: Maybe start a new thread regarding the recording of the interview. Oh please, NO!!!!
smac97 Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 38 minutes ago, lostindc said: Has anyone else noticed that a lot of posts in this thread are focused on killing the messenger instead of the message? Nope. There have been tons of commentary about the substance of Sam Young's "message," such as it is. But this thread is not about his "message." It's about his excommunications. 38 minutes ago, lostindc said: This includes an excessive focus on trying to read into Sam Young’s mind and analyze his actions in order critique his motives and methods. Why are we not focused on Sam’ message and then reducing his message to help us understand if his message is valid? We've done that. A lot. Not impressed with Sam Young's message or his methods. -Smac 1
rongo Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: 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. I think asking for signed agreements not to record was a mistake. I would just assume it was going to be recorded, and make sure that what was said on the Church's part was as dignified and "good" as possible. That's all you can do in 2018. I think pat-downs, device confiscation, and scanning for devices would also be bizarre and not look good. Not a single one of these "gotcha" recordings has hurt the Church, so I would simply ask that they not be used and leave it at that --- and not be surprised if a recording surfaces. One rule I try to live by is to not be ridiculous, and laying down rules you can't enforce and look silly when they aren't enforced puts one in ridiculous territory. I think trying to get apostates not to record interviews or councils is a fool's errand, no matter how many agreements you make them sign. ---- Yes, it could have been a HC. It could have been the stake president himself, if people want to play that game. Just prove that it wasn't! I have a hard time thinking that anyone there, other than the Youngs, would do that and then give it to Mike Norton. Yuck! That goes beyond simply agreeing with and sympathizing with Sam Young. And then when you have Mike Norton and McKenna Denson goofing around and then setting up their gotcha testimony meeting footage right before . . . 4
rongo Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: I agree that planting a bug in the HC room is another possibility. With tech the way it is, that wouldn't be too hard. Someone would need access to the room for 30 seconds tops. Why only the very limited audio footage, then? Why not the whole thing?
kllindley Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, rongo said: Yes, it could have been a HC. It could have been the stake president himself, if people want to play that game. Just prove that it wasn't! I have a hard time thinking that anyone there, other than the Youngs, would do that and then give it to Mike Norton. Yuck! That goes beyond simply agreeing with and sympathizing with Sam Young. And then when you have Mike Norton and McKenna Denson goofing around and then setting up their gotcha testimony meeting footage right before . . . That's my take on the recording as well. The fact that it is public through Norton is meaningful evidence.
rockpond Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 Just now, rongo said: Why only the very limited audio footage, then? Why not the whole thing? I would surmise that the entire DC was recorded but they only uploaded the first 15 minutes because Sam has already posted the content of what he presented on his blog.
Calm Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, kllindley said: That's my take on the recording as well. The fact that it is public through Norton is meaningful evidence. Could have likely as easily been given to McKnight. 1
rockpond Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 1 minute ago, kllindley said: That's my take on the recording as well. The fact that it is public through Norton is meaningful evidence. It could be meaningful evidence. It could also be the quickest route to get something published to a broad audience quickly while protecting anonymity of the supplier. If you want to get something widely and anonymously published in the Mormon world, you basically have two choices: Ryan McKnight and Mike Norton, right?
kllindley Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 Just now, rockpond said: It could be meaningful evidence. It could also be the quickest route to get something published to a broad audience quickly while protecting anonymity of the supplier. If you want to get something widely and anonymously published in the Mormon world, you basically have two choices: Ryan McKnight and Mike Norton, right? 1 minute ago, Calm said: Could have likely as easily been given to McKnight. I would agree. Maybe Dehlin. But the choice to go to Norton over others is interesting. Certainly doesn't prove anything either way about Young.
ALarson Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 1 minute ago, rockpond said: It could be meaningful evidence. It could also be the quickest route to get something published to a broad audience quickly while protecting anonymity of the supplier. If you want to get something widely and anonymously published in the Mormon world, you basically have two choices: Ryan McKnight and Mike Norton, right? True. Do we know anything other than Norton is the one who put it on YouTube?
rockpond Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 5 minutes ago, kllindley said: I would agree. Maybe Dehlin. But the choice to go to Norton over others is interesting. Certainly doesn't prove anything either way about Young. Dehlin has never been about protecting anonymity.
rockpond Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 5 minutes ago, ALarson said: True. Do we know anything other than Norton is the one who put it on YouTube? Nope.
rongo Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 6 minutes ago, rockpond said: I would surmise that the entire DC was recorded but they only uploaded the first 15 minutes because Sam has already posted the content of what he presented on his blog. That would indicate Young to me, then, because --- why not include Sam's voice on the recording? That makes it look like he didn't want his tone, or things he said "off script" to get out. He published the papers he says they gave the council and read. That's it. Why not provide audio of the martyr speaking truth to power if he was just reading what he published after? What if he went "off script" and hurt the image people are frantically insisting on maintaining? I could totally see the released audio just being the stake president then. Similarly, if it was an Alma the Elder on the council, why not release the audio of Abinadi? Unless Abinadi's performance was something you didn't want people to hear. 1
lostindc Posted September 17, 2018 Author Posted September 17, 2018 20 minutes ago, smac97 said: Nope. There have been tons of commentary about the substance of Sam Young's "message," such as it is. But this thread is not about his "message." It's about his excommunications. We've done that. A lot. Not impressed with Sam Young's message or his methods. -Smac I too am glad change is happening.
cinepro Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Should they strip search all the participants? May I suggest a more elegant solution...?
Recommended Posts