Sam Young is Excommunicated

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

???

I haven't responded to Smac or communicated with him regarding what he posted.  You must have me confused with someone else possibly?

That’s quite possible. Hard to go back and look when posting on a mobile device. I beg your pardon if that is the case. 

What I said about Smac stands though. From the beginning, he characterized his comments as a surmise, not a statement of hard fact. 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes, IF being the important word and Smac was not saying "if".

I think you should have let this one go.  Now, this "surmising" thing is gonna come back to haunt us all.

As I read it, he was implying “if”. All along. 

[Abulafia]

If anyone is actually interested in the history of confession within the church!!

I couldn't find the specific article I read before, but did find a brilliant article by Edward Kimball. (My bold)

I'll copy/paste the salient section and provide the link.

"We turn now to the history and practice of confession in various dispensations of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Modern  latter day saints have been reared to see the need for confession to ones bishop as almost self evident but the scriptural and historical records paint a more varied picture.

The present LDS practice of confession to ones bishop relies primarily on the authority of tradition and modern day inspiration rather than on a specific instruction found in the standard works"

Kimball, Edward L., 'Confession in LDS Doctrine and Practice',   BYU Studies, 36, no 2 (1996-97)

 

[Abulafia]

Link

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/confession-lds-doctrine-and-practice

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

If anyone is actually interested in the history of confession within the church!!

I couldn't find the specific article I read before, but did find a brilliant article by Edward Kimball. (My bold)

I'll copy/paste the salient section and provide the link.

"We turn now to the history and practice of confession in various dispensations of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Modern  latter day saints have been reared to see the need for confession to ones bishop as almost self evident but the scriptural and historical records paint a more varied picture.

The present LDS practice of confession to ones bishop relies primarily on the authority of tradition and modern day inspiration rather than on a specific instruction found in the standard works"

Kimball, Edward L., 'Confession in LDS Doctrine and Practice',   BYU Studies, 36, no 2 (1996-97)

 

And your point is what? 

The Church of Jesus Christ does not hold to the sola scriptura dogma. Surely you knew that. 

[Abulafia]

  16 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

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

To which lostindc responded

"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".

Avatar4321 then followed: -

16 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

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

To which lostindc responded: -

"So the Shepherds held worthiness interviews with youth?"

roadheadlee then responded: -

 

16 hours 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.

D&C 42:80

80 And if any man or woman shall commit ^aadultery, he or she shall be tried before two elders of the church, or more, and every word shall be established against him or her by two ^bwitnesses of the church, and not of the enemy; but if there are more than two witnesses it is better.

  81 But he or she shall be condemned by the mouth of two witnesses; and the elders shall lay the case before the ^achurch, and the church shall lift up their hands against him or her, that they may be dealt with according to the ^blaw of God.

  82 And if it can be, it is necessary that the ^abishop be present also.

  83 And thus ye shall do in all cases which shall come before you.

 

But this concerns adultery, an activity which has far reaching consequences for the families involved and has nothing to do with children up to the age of 18 being interviewed one on one and asked sexually explicit questions.

 

The point being there is no scriptural precedent for one and one interviews with a bishop..and Sam Young, has in effect, been excommunicated for trying to change *traditions of men*.  

 

Edited September 18, 2018 by Abulafia

[Gray]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Not all states require background checks on doctors, I believe.

PS:  I don't think a criminal background check for bishops would be too costly, seems like a good idea imo.

Apparently only 5 states do not require it. But any reputable hospital would.

[Gray]

11 hours ago, TOmNossor said:

 

Gray,

I do not agree with your take on Sam Young.  I do not believe it is impossible that you believe Sam Young is the fellow you claim him to be (and he claims to be).

It seems to me that Sam Young is quite willing to burn down the church to get his way.  That his way is no partial way as the church already moved his direction.  That his cause was once 6^th on his list of reasons to proclaim his opposition, but is now all he talks about.  And much more. 

Concerning what you claim the link I offered said:

The title of the link is literally, “Invitation to Vote Opposed – Together.”  While one of his invitations is as you quote, another is, “Add your name to the Common Consent Register – A Record of those who Disapprove.  Click here for the link.”

Then he spends many pages documenting why he does not sustain the church leaders.  His prose is in support of his title and his invitation to sign his Disapprove petition.

Again, his heart could be pure, I have no ability to see it.  But I can gauge the cumulative impact of his words and actions.  I think if he found out that person x (any person in the whole world) would agree with him and sign his petition and oppose the CoJCoLDS if he offered argument y he would offer argument y (I would like to believe that he would offer argument y ONLY if he believed it to be true, and I do believe this, but he would offer argument y because he is interested in everyone voting disapprove he can get to vote disapprove, IMO).

Charity, TOm

I think he wanted to persuade a little, but he also encouraged people to vote to sustain if that's what they felt. His larger point was to take advantage of the system of common consent, which is dying.

Even if he were encouraging everyone to vote opposed, that is not apostasy, unless of course common consent is a meaningless farce. If not consenting has ecclesiastical consequences then they might as well drop the charade and end the sustaining vote process.

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, Abulafia said:

If anyone is actually interested in the history of confession within the church!!

I couldn't find the specific article I read before, but did find a brilliant article by Edward Kimball. (My bold)

I'll copy/paste the salient section and provide the link.

"We turn now to the history and practice of confession in various dispensations of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Modern  latter day saints have been reared to see the need for confession to ones bishop as almost self evident but the scriptural and historical records paint a more varied picture.

The present LDS practice of confession to ones bishop relies primarily on the authority of tradition and modern day inspiration rather than on a specific instruction found in the standard works"

Kimball, Edward L., 'Confession in LDS Doctrine and Practice',   BYU Studies, 36, no 2 (1996-97)

 

Knowing that members of the church believe that we don't have to rely on scripture for all of our practices, and that we believe that God reveals/inspires our leaders in how to run His church, I'm not sure what the history of confessions in the church has to do with anything.

I agree that it's interesting (I love history and have a degree in it for that reason) but outlining that confessions in the church right now are based on modern day inspiration and not on instructions in the scriptures seems irrelevant from a spiritual point of view.

Edited September 18, 2018 by bluebell

[blueglass]

58 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think he wanted to persuade a little, but he also encouraged people to vote to sustain if that's what they felt. His larger point was to take advantage of the system of common consent, which is dying.

Even if he were encouraging everyone to vote opposed, that is not apostasy, unless of course common consent is a meaningless farce. If not consenting has ecclesiastical consequences then they might as well drop the charade and end the sustaining vote process.

I think most people are familiar with the Byron Marchant opposing vote in general conference in 1977 where he voted opposed to the black african eternal marriage and family, endowed women, and priesthood ban.  

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1977/10/the-sustaining-of-church-officers?lang=eng

"All in favor, please manifest it. Contrary, if there be any, by the same sign.

It seems, President Kimball, that the voting has been unanimous in favor of these officers and General Authorities, and we would ask those new members of the First Quorum of the Seventy to take their seats with their brethren, please.

Voice from the gallery: President Tanner? President Tanner?

President Tanner: Yes?

Voice from the gallery: Did you note my negative vote?

President Tanner: No. Let me see it.

Voice from the gallery: Up here.

President Tanner: Oh, up there. I’m sorry, I couldn’t see up in that gallery. We’ll ask you to see Elder Hinckley immediately after this meeting."

Does anyone know if there were actions by the prophet David O McKay and acting president of the quorum of the twelve Harold B. Lee to discipline Elder Hugh B. Brown when he gathered together a vote in favor of overturning the black african exaltation ban policy in 1969?  He conducted a number of interviews, and spoke with a number of papers, news media promising the change was coming.  

Edited September 18, 2018 by blueglass

[rongo]

13 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Does anyone know if there were actions by the prophet David O McKay and acting president of the quorum of the twelve Harold B. Lee to discipline Elder Hugh B. Brown when he gathered together a vote in favor of overturning the black african exaltation ban policy in 1969?  He conducted a number of interviews, and spoke with a number of papers, news media promising the change was coming.  

Do you have a source for that? 

[Abulafia]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Knowing that members of the church believe that we don't have to rely on scripture for all of our practices, and that we believe that God reveals/inspires our leaders in how to run His church, I'm not sure what the history of confessions in the church has to do with anything.

I agree that it's interesting (I love history and have a degree in it for that reason) but outlining that confessions in the church right now are based on modern day inspiration and not on instructions in the scriptures seems irrelevant from a spiritual point of view.

Because there is nothing in modern scripture either that suggests middle aged men should be alone with kids asking them sexually explicit questions. It's tradition and has nothing to do with inspiration. 

[bluebell]

Just now, Abulafia said:

Because there is nothing in modern scripture either that suggests middle aged men should be alone with kids asking them sexually explicit questions. It's tradition and has nothing to do with inspiration. 

That's not what your link said though.  The information you posted, and the part you bolded, said that it was tradition and inspiration.  You can say that it has nothing to do with inspiration but, no disrespect intended, your opinions on the topic don't really matter to me.  I think that you are wrong (and you think I am).  Neither one of us can use our opinion as evidence of anything or as an argument for why things need to change.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

16 hours ago, kllindley said:

Well, you sure hammered me barely a month ago for doing this.  Is this valid just for claims you like? 

IIRC you were stating rumor as truth without stating it was an opinion or that you "surmised" it. That's SMAC's thing right now.

If you claim something is fact, you should back it up. If you refused to support it by answering the CFR then you would be breaking board rules and you should be called on it. But if you realize you can't support it and then change your statement to say it is your opinion or that you "surmise" it, like SMAC did, then there's no need for CFR.

So, no. What you did (IIRC) was different.

Here, Scott was stating that Albufia couldn't change her statement to "surmise" or "opinion" because she claimed to have a source. So I was asking, how solid a source must be to consider it hard enough evidence that one could no longer surmise because it was fact. I think you may have missed some of the silly back and forth about this whole "surmise" business. My comment you are taking issue with was me taking issue with Scott refusing to allow Albufia to change her statement of fact to opinion and still demanding the CFR. I hope that makes some kind of rambling sense  

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, rongo said:

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. 

That's a good question. The whole thing is weird. There may be more recording released later. Who knows?

But I will say, that if it was an Abinadi moment, that I have no problem with it being in writing. It is much easier to consume when it's written down instead of on a horrible recording. Still, the recording that was released really does nothing to help Sam Young. It only hurts him, IMO.

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's a good question. The whole thing is weird. There may be more recording released later. Who knows?

But I will say, that if it was an Abinadi moment, that I have no problem with it being in writing. It is much easier to consume when it's written down instead of on a horrible recording. Still, the recording that was released really does nothing to help Sam Young. It only hurts him, IMO.

Agreed. 

If Sam's released text is all there was, then the progressives are going to have to keep looking for their Abinadi . . .  

[Abulafia]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That's not what your link said though.  The information you posted, and the part you bolded, said that it was tradition and inspiration.  You can say that it has nothing to do with inspiration but, no disrespect intended, your opinions on the topic don't really matter to me.  I think that you are wrong (and you think I am).  Neither one of us can use our opinion as evidence of anything or as an argument for why things need to change.

 

Okay, so current policy is doctrine?  Help me understand here?

[HappyJackWagon]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That’s quite possible. Hard to go back and look when posting on a mobile device. I beg your pardon if that is the case. 

What I said about Smac stands though. From the beginning, he characterized his comments as a surmise, not a statement of hard fact. 

If by "from the beginning" you mean something other than when he made his accusation, you may have a point  

From the beginning, Smac actually said that the recording was evidence of Sam Young's lack of integrity and honesty. He didn't "surmise" it until he was CFR'd.

Quote

I don't think the signed agreement was intended to guarantee anything.  It was intended as an assurance of Sam Young's honesty and integrity, or even a test of his honesty and integrity.

And it looks like he failed that test. 

-Smac

But like others have said, it's time to let this drop. SMAC changed his statement of fact to his opinion based on the way he viewed the "evidence" available to him, just as Abulafia changed her statement of fact to opinion based on the "evidence" available to her.

@Scott Lloyd, @ALarson let it go.  No more warnings.  ~Mods.

[Abulafia]

BlueDreams, 

"By 1844, the basic doctrinal structure of the Church was in place. Since that time, however, there have been official pronouncements clarifying doctrinal understanding or adapting doctrinal applications to particular circumstances. Some are now included in the Doctrine and Covenants; others are published as official messages of the First Presidency"

From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism..

Can you show me in the D & C, or 1st Presidency message where the practice of one and one interviews with kids, asking sexually explicit questions, was canonized by inspiration?

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Even if he were encouraging everyone to vote opposed, that is not apostasy, unless of course common consent is a meaningless farce. If not consenting has ecclesiastical consequences then they might as well drop the charade and end the sustaining vote process.

It's not meaningless. There are other reasons for the sustaining process. By raising your hand you are making a commitment to yourself and the congregation that you will support that person in their new calling. 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, JAHS said:

It's not meaningless. There are other reasons for the sustaining process. By raising your hand you are making a commitment to yourself and the congregation that you will support that person in their new calling. 

But if you don't, you're an apostate and deserve church discipline. No. That would be taking things too far, right? So why discipline someone for encouraging people to vote their conscience, whether that be sustaining or opposing.

[Avatar4321]

24 minutes ago, rongo said:

Agreed. 

If Sam's released text is all there was, then the progressives are going to have to keep looking for their Abinadi . . .  

I don’t think they want to hear abinadi

[Gray]

15 minutes ago, JAHS said:

It's not meaningless. There are other reasons for the sustaining process. By raising your hand you are making a commitment to yourself and the congregation that you will support that person in their new calling.  

I believe the kids are calling that "virtue signaling." Normally a term I hate but it seems to apply to that idea. Whatever that is it's not common consent and it's not "voting"

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, Gray said:

I believe the kids are calling that "virtue signaling." Normally a term I hate but it seems to apply to that idea. Whatever that is it's not common consent and it's not "voting"

It's as valid a voting method as pressing a button or punching a card in a voting booth.

And yes, it is common consent.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

51 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Can you show me in the D & C, or 1st Presidency message where the practice of one and one interviews with kids, asking sexually explicit questions, was canonized by inspiration?

From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (a persuasive, but not mandatory, authority) (emphasis added):

Quote

LDS scriptures establish a loving and hopeful attitude toward apostates. Latter-day Saints are strongly counseled to love those who have left the faith, and to encourage, plead, and work with those who have strayed, inviting "the lost sheep" back to the fold (Luke 15:3-7). Of the wayward, the resurrected Savior taught, "Ye shall not cast him out of your…places of worship, for unto such shall ye continue to minister; for ye know not but what they will return and repent, and come unto me with full purpose of heart, and I shall heal them; and ye shall be the means of bringing salvation unto them" (3 Ne. 18:32). The desire to return is motivated by the reality of repentance enabled by the Atonement of Jesus Christ. "He who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more. By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins-behold, he will confess them and forsake them" (D&C 58:42-43).

And here ("Confession of Sins"):

Quote

Confession of sins is a necessary beginning step in the process of repenting and gaining forgiveness. It is a test of true repentance: "By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins-behold, he will confess them and forsake them" (D&C 58:43).

The need for repentance has existed from the time of Adam. The Lord instructed Adam: "Wherefore teach it unto your children, that all men, everywhere, must repent, or they can in nowise inherit the Kingdom of God, for no unclean thing can dwell there, or dwell in his presence" (Moses 6:57). The Bible states that "if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (1 Jn. 1:8). There are two categories of sin, those of commission and those of omission: "All unrighteousness is sin" (1 Jn. 5:17), and "To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin" (James 4:17). Except for Jesus Christ, everyone who has lived past early childhood has sinned (1 Jn. 3:5; 2 Cor. 5:21).

At least three confessions may need to be made to help the sinner repent: To the Lord, to proper ecclesiastical officers, and to the injured party. Latter-day Saint doctrine holds that all must confess their sins to the Lord, from whom alone ultimate forgiveness can come. In addition, major sins (such as adultery, fornication, robbery, embezzlement, fraud, false swearing, and comparable transgressions), which may have a bearing upon Church membership, must be confessed to ecclesiastical officers such as bishops. Church officers are counseled to respond to confessions with confidentiality and understanding, and also to encourage members to seek the Lord's forgiveness, forsake transgression, and make restitution. Transgressors are taught to make proper reconciliation with and restitution to those they have injured. Effective confession requires a "broken heart and contrite spirit" (D&C 59:8) and a willingness to humble oneself and do all that is required for complete forgiveness.

Transgressions of lesser gravity that have offended others, such as marital or social differences, minor outbursts of anger, petty disagreements, and the like, are to be confessed to the injured party often resolving the matter without involving ecclesiastical authority. Public confession is not required unless the transgression has been against the public (D&C 42:88-93).

The Church has no set time or stated formula as to when confession takes place. Periodic interviews with ecclesiastical officers may be suitable occasions, or a special appointment can be made.

Confession helps lift the burden and leads toward peace, freedom, and happiness. After warning his hearers of excruciating pain and punishments that follow unrepented sins, the Lord said: "Confess your sins, lest you suffer these punishments" (D&C 19:20). Repentant persons find substantial psychological as well as spiritual strength in proper confession.

And here ("Bishop") (emphases added):

Quote

A bishop is the ecclesiastical leader of a Latter-day Saint congregation or ward, and has comprehensive pastoral and administrative responsibility at that level. This differs from other Christian churches in which bishops administer large geographical areas involving a number of congregations.

The word "bishop" comes from the Greek word episkopos, meaning "overseer." He is the pastor or shepherd, and is charged with the care of his flock. In the apostolic period, Paul wrote to the bishops in Philippi (Phil. 1:1), and other letters speak of the bishop's duties and of his sacred role in caring for the Church of God (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:7-9).

The bishop's office is a complex priesthood calling. The bishop is president of the ward's Aaronic Priesthood holders and is responsible for all their activities. He is also an ordained high priest in the Melchizedek Priesthood and is the presiding high priest in the ward, responsible for all ward activities and functions (D&C 107:15-17). As the common judge and the presiding high priest, he determines the worthiness of all members of his ward and directs the performance of sacred ordinances (D&C 107:68-76). He is assisted by two counselors, usually high priests, who with the bishop constitute the bishopric and share responsibility for all ward organizations. The bishop and his counselors extend calls to ward members as needed to fill the numerous assignments in the many programs of the ward, encompassing activities for ward members at all ages.

...

The bishop has overall responsibility for all functions of the ward, which are designed to lead each individual member to Christ and eternal life. He is to "watch over the Church" (D&C 46:27). With other ward leaders, he is concerned for the daily physical needs of each ward member, especially the sick, elderly, and handicapped. He is like a father to the ward.

As the presiding high priest of the ward, the bishop presides at Sacrament, priesthood, and ward council meetings, and at all other ward services or activities. By these and other means he watches over both the spiritual and temporal affairs of the ward and its individual members and organizes the activities for preaching the gospel, serving in the temple, and helping ward members become more Christlike.

The bishop is the common judge of his ward. He spends much time visiting with or interviewing ward members. He determines their worthiness to participate in sacred ordinances, to receive the priesthood, to receive calls to serve in the ward and on missions, and to do temple work. He spends many hours interviewing and counseling youth as they become prospective missionaries.

Besides determining worthiness, the bishop must see that all Church ordinances are performed and recorded correctly. His direction or approval is necessary for baptism, confirmation, administration of the Sacrament, blessing and naming of babies, priesthood ordinations, and all temple ordinances for members of his ward.

Where there is need, the bishop may be involved in counseling on a regular basis. He may help ward members establish goals for improvement, or he may impose appropriate discipline. In cases of serious transgression, he may initiate formal disciplinary procedures, which can affect membership, and may be necessary to bring some back to full fellowship.

...

Other duties of the bishop include receiving and accounting for the financial contributions of ward members and caring of the needy through the bishop's storehouse and the fast offering fund. He sees that all necessary supplies are at hand for ward functions. He arranges for and conducts funeral services. When it is appropriate and civil laws permit, he may perform marriages.

The bishop, as a father in his own home, as a family provider with a normal occupation, and as a member of the community in which he lives, has many time demands beyond his ecclesiastical calling. He must organize well and delegate and supervise effectively to accomplish all his duties.

The bishop's Sunday schedule usually involves a twelve or more hour day, including attending and conducting organizational meetings, worship services, training sessions; counseling and interviewing ward members; extending invitations or calls to participate in Church service in the ward; visiting the sick in hospitals; and visiting ward members in their homes as needed. He spends many additional hours during the week in meeting ward needs. His counselors and priesthood and auxiliary leaders also spend many hours helping him with these ward responsibilities. However, the overall responsibility for ward members and certain specific duties, such as annual interviewing of individuals for temple recommends and tithing settlement, are not in ordinary circumstances delegated.

There is plenty of scriptural justification and foundation for bishop interviews.

And these men, who spend many, many hours every week, for years on end, performing extensive unpaid service to others, are the ones being characterized by Sam Young and his compatriots as nascent perverts and child molesters.

Not cool.

The general authorities of the Church have very broad - but not unfettered - discretionary authority to administer the functions of the Church and find ways to meet the needs of its members.  That necessarily and quite sensibly involves bishop interviews.  "For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward."  (D&C 58:26).

-Smac

Edited September 18, 2018 by smac97