Sam Young is Excommunicated

[ksfisher]

11 hours ago, Abulafia said:

The history of confession within the LDS church, like most things, has developed and changed imho.

As it should in a church that believes in continuing revelation and modern day prophets and apostles.

[Gray]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

If it were as you described there would be no consequences to voting opposed. Also there would be a meaningful way to tally votes across the church, and the vote would happen prior to any new apostle or prophet taking up their position.

[blueglass]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Do you have a source for that? 

A number of historians have documented Elder Hugh Brown's resistance from within the quorum on these matters.  It was the main reason he was denied ordination to the quorum of the twelve after President Grant proposed his name a number of times and was turned down.  

See the notes in Harris book Ch5. also Bringhurst and Quinn speak about the 1969 vote to overturn and the aftermath.  The primary sources are Edwin Firmage, diaries of David O McKay, and from the paper leaks to NYT this was correspondence with Wallace Turner.  Most of the negative pressure was after the supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education when Elder Peterson led the charge in Utah to prevent blacks from giving blood transfusions, and to protest blacks buying houses in white neighborhoods near LDS chapels, and the Deseret news instituted a ban on photographing blacks with whites in the paper.

 

Edited September 18, 2018 by blueglass

[rongo]

16 minutes ago, blueglass said:

A number of historians have documented Elder Hugh Brown's resistance from within the quorum on these matters.  It was the main reason he was denied ordination to the quorum of the twelve after President Grant proposed his name a number of times and was turned down.  

See the notes in Harris book Ch5. also Bringhurst and Quinn speak about the 1969 vote to overturn and the aftermath.  The primary sources are Edwin Firmage, diaries of David O McKay, and from the paper leaks to NYT this was correspondence with Wallace Turner.  Most of the negative pressure was after the supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education when Elder Peterson led the charge in Utah to prevent blacks from giving blood transfusions, and to protest blacks buying houses in white neighborhoods near LDS chapels, and the Deseret news instituted a ban on photographing blacks with whites in the paper.

Thank you!

[HappyJackWagon]

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Not if one is punished for their vote. And not if one is punished for encouraging others to vote honestly.

That sounds more like a Russian election to me  

[rongo]

All of the anonymous voting measures are fine, but are you advocating that the anonymous vote determine the outcome, instead of the bishop/stake president's decision? That's where I'm coming from as far as rendering the keys meaningless.

The Church, and the Church's discipline system, is not a pure democracy. It sounds like some people here might be advocating that they should be. 

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

Quote

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

If it were as you described there would be no consequences to voting opposed.

There are no consequences to voting opposed (except, I suppose, for possibly not being able to hold a temple recommend).

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

Also there would be a meaningful way to tally votes across the church,

It's a sustaining vote.

And dissenting votes are addressed and forwarded to the Church.

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

and the vote would happen prior to any new apostle or prophet taking up their position.

From an article by Bishop H. Burke Peterson:

Quote

Each Church member is entitled to vote for officers of any Church unit to which he or she belongs. A member may vote to sustain officers of the ward or branch in which he lives. However, he is not expected to vote for officers of wards or branches in which he does not live, although it is not likely that anyone will object if he does.

...

A member may vote to sustain General Authorities of the Church in any meeting held anywhere within the Church at which the names of the General Authorities are presented for a vote.

When a member is called to a Church position and he is presented to the congregation for a sustaining vote, he should manifest his personal sustaining vote for himself in that calling.

Voting by the uplifted hand to sustain someone in a Church position is a sign of our personal commitment to uphold the Lord’s choice of that person in that calling. President Harold B. Lee identified the commitment, the covenant, inherent in voting to sustain. In the solemn assembly called to sustain Joseph Fielding Smith as prophet, seer, and revelator to the Church, President Lee said:

“Everyone is perfectly free to vote as he wishes. There is no compulsion whatsoever in this voting. When you vote affirmatively you make a solemn covenant with the Lord that you will sustain, that is, give, your full loyalty and support, without equivocation or reservation, to the officer for whom you vote.” (Conference Report, April 1970, p. 103.)

We are free to exercise our free agency to sustain or not sustain, but we should consider prayerfully the counsel of President Joseph Fielding Smith:

“No man, if the people decide not to sustain him, could preside over any body of Latter-day Saints in this Church, and yet it is not the right of the people to nominate, to choose, for that is the right of the priesthood. The priesthood selects, under the inspiration of our Father in heaven, and then it is the duty of the Latter-day Saints, as they are assembled in conference or other capacity, by the uplifted hand, to sustain or to reject; and I take it that no man has the right to raise his hand in opposition, or with contrary vote, unless he has a reason for doing so that would be valid if presented before those who stand at the head of the Church. In other words, I have no right to raise my hand in opposition to a man who is appointed to any position in this Church, simply because I may not like him, or because of some personal disagreement or feeling I may have, but only if he is guilty of wrong doing, of transgression of the laws of the Church which would disqualify him for the position which he is called to hold. That is my understanding of it.” (Conference Report, June 1919, p. 92.)

The right to call members to Church positions rests with the presiding priesthood authorities under the guidance of divine inspiration. The right to sustain rests with the individual members of the Church. President John Taylor said, “God appoints, the people sustain.” President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., outlined this principle in a general conference of the Church:

“When the presiding authority has so ‘nominated’ or chosen, or called any man to office, that man is then presented to the body of the Church to be ‘sustained,’ in political language to be ‘elected.’

“Thus the body of the Church has no ‘calling’ or ‘nominating’ power, but only the sustaining, or politically speaking, the ‘electing’ power.

“When the presiding authority presents any man to the body of the Church to be sustained, the only power which the assembly has is to vote, by uplifted hand, either to sustain or not to sustain.

“Obviously, neither the body of the Church, nor any of its members can propose that other men be called to office, for the calling of men is the sole power and function of the presiding authority.

“Therefore, all debate, all proposals of other names, all discussions of merit and worthiness are wholly out of order in such an assemblage.” (Conference Report, October 1940, pp. 28–29.)

I am open to the possibility that the stake presidency erred in citing Sam Young's encouragement of others to cast dissenting votes.  I am not sure if that is a proper basis for discipline (it may be, I just haven't given the matter much thought or ressearch). 

But there seemed to be plenty of alternative and independently-sufficient grounds for disciplining Sam Young.

Thanks,

-Smac

[blueglass]

2 hours 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.

Do you believe that how presiding authorities understand "unnatural, impure, or unholy practices" has changed over time?    

https://www.amazon.com/Passionate-Marriage-Intimacy-Committed-Relationships/dp/0393334279

https://www.amazon.com/Kosher-Sex-Recipe-Passion-Intimacy/dp/0385494661

https://deseretbook.com/p/they-were-not-ashamed-strengthening-marriage-through-sexual-fulfillment-laura-m-brotherson-51575?variant_id=51521-paperback

Edited September 18, 2018 by blueglass

[provoman]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

I am open to the possibility that the stake presidency erred in citing Sam Young's encouragement of others to cast dissenting votes.  I am not sure if that is a proper basis for discipline (it may be, I just haven't given the matter much thought or ressearch). 

But there seemed to be plenty of alternative and independently-sufficient grounds for disciplining Sam Young.

Thanks,

-Smac

As I recall the Stake President cited Sam's blog, particularly Sam's assertions that if you are not voting opposed you are not following Jesus. I beleive this is from Sam's March 9, 2017 "Take Responsibility" posting which has a bolded subheading of "Follow Jesus by voting opposed".

Edited September 18, 2018 by provoman

[ALarson]

20 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Updated figures from quit.mormon

31

queued

send to church

1777

queued

confirmation

3515

I don't know if there are updated numbers on this, but I just got an email from my sister telling me her daughter and her husband turned in their resignation yesterday (through quit Mormon).  She said they were told that it would take quite a bit longer than normal because they are being swamped with resignations right now.

I was shocked to hear they are resigning!  He is a returned missionary, they are married in the temple, he is in ward leadership and so is she.  They've called their Bishop to let him know and to ask for releases (and have told him why they are resigning).  They live in a very Mormon community and have a large group of friends.  My sister said that several of the other young couples (active members) in their group of friends are resigning as well.  They have two young daughters (6 years and 3 years old) and stated that they do not want their daughters in a church that supports one on one interviews with adult males where their daughters may be asked questions of a sexual nature.  I guess all of their group of friends have been following how this with Sam Young would be handled by the church leaders.

This issue along with the SSM policy is a huge issue for many of this younger generation and they are not afraid to stand up for what they believe.  It'll be interesting to watch and see if more changes are made because of this.  

Edited September 18, 2018 by ALarson

[blueglass]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I don't know if there are updated numbers on this, but I just got an email from my sister telling me her daughter and her husband turned in their resignation yesterday (through quit Mormon).  She said they were told that it would take quite a bit longer than normal because they are being swamped with resignations right now.

I was shocked to hear they are resigning!  He is a returned missionary, they are married in the temple, he is in ward leadership and so is she.  They've called their Bishop to let him know and to ask for releases (and have told him why they are resigning).  They live in a very Mormon community and have a large group of friends.  My sister said that several of the other young couples (active members) in their group of friends are resigning as well.  They have two young daughters (6 years and 3 years old) and stated that they do not want their daughters in a church that supports one on one interviews with adult males where their daughters may be asked questions of a sexual nature.  I guess all of their group of friends have been following how this with Sam Young would be handled by the church leaders.

This really hurts - I feel a strong pull on my heart at this time when I read these notices.  What are your thoughts on Jon Ogden's book?  

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, provoman said:

As I recall the Stake President cited Sam's blog, particularly Sam's assertions that if you are not voting opposed you are not following Jesus. I beleive this is from Sam's March 9, 2017 "Take Responsibility" posting which has a bolded subheading of "Follow Jesus by voting opposed".

Ah.  So the coercive element here was not the stake president, but Sam Young?

Interesting.

-Smac

[Maestrophil]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I don't know if there are updated numbers on this, but I just got an email from my sister telling me her daughter and her husband turned in their resignation yesterday (through quit Mormon).  She said they were told that it would take quite a bit longer than normal because they are being swamped with resignations right now.

I was shocked to hear they are resigning!  He is a returned missionary, they are married in the temple, he is in ward leadership and so is she.  They've called their Bishop to let him know and to ask for releases (and have told him why they are resigning).  They live in a very Mormon community and have a large group of friends.  My sister said that several of the other young couples (active members) in their group of friends are resigning as well.  They have two young daughters (6 years and 3 years old) and stated that they do not want their daughters in a church that supports one on one interviews with adult males where their daughters may be asked questions of a sexual nature.  I guess all of their group of friends have been following how this with Sam Young would be handled by the church leaders.

This issue along with the SSM policy is a huge issue for many of this younger generation and they are not afraid to stand up for what they believe.  It'll be interesting to watch and see if more changes are made because of this.  

This hurts me too.  It feels like selling your birthright for a bowl of porridge to me.  How much change could these saints make if they stay and unite with like minded saints in expressing faithful discomfort to leaders, serving others who are struggling, and supporting the leaders they have that are likely mostly good leaders who do not act inappropriately with their kids?  That way, if and when the slow boat of the Church makes positive strides, they are still on the Good Ship.  I don't begrudge anyone their choice if that is what they feel they have to do, but resignation does not seem proportionate to the situation IMO.

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, blueglass said:

This really hurts - I feel a strong pull on my heart at this time when I read these notices. 

Yes, me too.  I am honestly still kind of in shock over it.  They showed absolutely no outward signs that they were anything but extremely strong, believing members.  But this was a huge issue for them because of their two young daughters.  I guess the Father (my sister's son-in-law) was questioned extensively by a very overly curious and probing Bishop about masturbation when he was quite young, and wants nothing like this to ever take place with one of his girls.  I can understand that.

I honestly do feel that the leaders are eventually going to have to apply the two deep rule to all interviews....but we will see....

7 minutes ago, blueglass said:

What are your thoughts on Jon Ogden's book?  

I have not read that yet, but it's certainly piqued my interest as I read more about it!

Edited September 18, 2018 by ALarson

[Abulafia]

54 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

And here ("Confession of Sins"):

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

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

Did you read the article I linked to by Edward Kimball? I read it right through. He has a good handle on the history of confession in the LDS church. 

Nowhere, that I can see, have you given scriptural or messages from the first presidency that canonise the practice of Bishop's speaking one to one with kids asking sexually explicit questions. 

Please show me where? 

 

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

 How much change could these saints make if they stay and unite with like minded saints in expressing faithful discomfort to leaders,.....

I think watching what happened with Sam Young is discouraging to many who believed changes could be made with speaking out against these interviews and other issues.  My sister said that they felt the leaders made an example out of him to silence any others who want to speak out, so they stood up and resigned.  

I am very sad about all of this.

Edited September 18, 2018 by ALarson

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Abulafia said:

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

Something doesn't have to be doctrine to be inspired.  Something being inspired also doesn't mean it can't change.

[blueglass]

58 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

And here ("Confession of Sins"):

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

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

I have had a lot of fulfillment, joy, goodness, wholeness restored when counseling with my bishops over the years.  Not always positive, but there were moments of light and goodness.  For me I think a bishopric would be blessed if more access were provided to receiving counseling training from accredited, certified sexuality/family counselors, or licensed therapists and that females were authorized to approve worthiness through additional keys restored to RS or YW presidents.  Perhaps through byu-I online they could extend a 2-year track to help with counseling training?  As far as compensation to bishops, I believe there is documentation showing that bishops used to receive 8% of the tithing received at least up until the end of the 19th century.  

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Do you believe that how presiding authorities understand "unnatural, impure, or unholy practices" has changed over time?    

https://www.amazon.com/Passionate-Marriage-Intimacy-Committed-Relationships/dp/0393334279

https://www.amazon.com/Kosher-Sex-Recipe-Passion-Intimacy/dp/0385494661

https://deseretbook.com/p/they-were-not-ashamed-strengthening-marriage-through-sexual-fulfillment-laura-m-brotherson-51575?variant_id=51521-paperback

Yes, I do believe that.

[Duncan]

54 minutes ago, blueglass said:

A number of historians have documented Elder Hugh Brown's resistance from within the quorum on these matters.  It was the main reason he was denied ordination to the quorum of the twelve after President Grant proposed his name a number of times and was turned down.  

See the notes in Harris book Ch5. also Bringhurst and Quinn speak about the 1969 vote to overturn and the aftermath.  The primary sources are Edwin Firmage, diaries of David O McKay, and from the paper leaks to NYT this was correspondence with Wallace Turner.  Most of the negative pressure was after the supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education when Elder Peterson led the charge in Utah to prevent blacks from giving blood transfusions, and to protest blacks buying houses in white neighborhoods near LDS chapels, and the Deseret news instituted a ban on photographing blacks with whites in the paper.

 

I'd be interested in seeing what the sources are for Pres. Brown's denial to the Twelve during President Grant's time. He was a Mission President in England prior to the war and previous to that was Granite Stake President for a few years I think,  but got released because of his work in the Liquor Commission

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Did you read the article I linked to by Edward Kimball? I read it right through. He has a good handle on the history of confession in the LDS church. 

I skimmed it.  it's listed as a reference in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article I linked to in my post.

25 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Nowhere, that I can see, have you given scriptural or messages from the first presidency that canonise the practice of Bishop's speaking one to one with kids asking sexually explicit questions. 

Please show me where? 

If I thought this was a good faith question, I'd be happy to help.

But I don't, so I won't.

I'm not impressed with loaded questions.

-Smac

[Gray]

45 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There are no consequences to voting opposed (except, I suppose, for possibly not being able to hold a temple recommend).

That's quite a serious consequence. It's also possible to lose one's membership for being too vocal about it.

 

45 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It's a sustaining vote.

And dissenting votes are addressed and forwarded to the Church.

From an article by Bishop H. Burke Peterson:

But have no impact on the outcome.

 

45 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am open to the possibility that the stake presidency erred in citing Sam Young's encouragement of others to cast dissenting votes.  I am not sure if that is a proper basis for discipline (it may be, I just haven't given the matter much thought or ressearch). 

 

Thanks, I'll be curious to hear your take once you've had a chance to mull it over.

[ALarson]

30 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Nowhere, that I can see, have you given scriptural or messages from the first presidency that canonise the practice of Bishop's speaking one to one with kids asking sexually explicit questions. 

Please show me where? 

 

You will most likely only get doges or deflections in response to that request.  That's because what you ask for doesn't exist from what I've read on this topic.

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, blueglass said:

I have had a lot of fulfillment, joy, goodness, wholeness restored when counseling with my bishops over the years.  Not always positive, but there were moments of light and goodness.  For me I think a bishopric would be blessed if more access were provided to receiving counseling training from accredited, certified sexuality/family counselors, or licensed therapists

I'm not sure what you mean by "more access."  Our ward's bishop refers people out to receive counseling all the time.  Very frequently.

Our ward bishop related an interesting story about a training meeting he attended with Elder Bednar.  The counsel from Elder Bednar was very much in line with what you are saying here.

19 minutes ago, blueglass said:

and that females were authorized to approve worthiness through additional keys restored to RS or YW presidents. 

I'd be open to that, though I think there is some risk of infantalizing women and girls, or of creating some sort of parallel line of authority apart from the bishop's calling.

19 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Perhaps through byu-I online they could extend a 2-year track to help with counseling training? 

I'm fine with that.  I think most of the counseling should be very basic.  Obey the commandments.  Repent.  Live virtuously.  That sort of thing.  Frankly, quite a few problems can be resolved simply by living the Gospel.  Quite a few, but not all.  For those others, bishops can and should refer members out to receive competent counseling and medical care.

19 minutes ago, blueglass said:

As far as compensation to bishops, I believe there is documentation showing that bishops used to receive 8% of the tithing received at least up until the end of the 19th century.  

I'm quite happy that bishops serve unpaid.  It resolves/avoids a host of problems.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

That's quite a serious consequence.

Sustaining the leaders of the Church is a condition for entry to the temple.

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's also possible to lose one's membership for being too vocal about it.

To the extent "being too vocal" = "repeatedly act[ing] in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders," yes.

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

Quote

It's a sustaining vote.

And dissenting votes are addressed and forwarded to the Church.

From an article by Bishop H. Burke Peterson:

But have no impact on the outcome.

Yes, they do.  The "impact" of a sustaining vote is that the body of the Church has been given an opportunity to participate in "common consent," to provide or withhold a sustaining vote.

I have a friend who cast a dissenting vote for a person who received a calling in her ward.  My friend knew about this person's misconduct, and so cast a dissenting vote, then spoke with the bishop afterwards.  The calling was rescinded.

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

Thanks, I'll be curious to hear your take once you've had a chance to mull it over.

Mulling it won't be sufficient.  I'd also have to research it.  Not sure I'm sufficiently curious about this issue to invest the time.

Thanks,

-Smac