Sam Young is Excommunicated

[Abulafia]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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.

Exactly. It doesn't exist in Hebrew Canon, it doesn't exist in NT Canon. It doesn't exist in the Book of Mormon and it doesn't exist in the D & C. 

Maybe there's a first presidency announcement somewhere, but I can't find it.

[Abulafia]

Here's a link to the transcript of the hearing. Would be interesting to compare with the letter sent by the SP, which Sam has made public.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/152pvapciFb8ev-xTl8MY0gA9Wsc-_Dg6ZtLGVTYHHZI/mobilebasic

 

https://invisiblescubit.wordpress.com/2018/09/17/excommunication-edict/

[blueglass]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

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.

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.

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

Thanks,

-Smac

- "More access" -  Ok when I say more access I am aware of the bishop authorizing 10 free sessions, or continuous support if needed to psychologists, therapists through LDS Family services, call 1-801-240-1711, 1-800-453-3860 ext 2-1711, ldsfamilyservices.org or even outside sources if necessary.  I have authorized personally a number of these expense checks myself.  This is a great resource.  It's just that for training leaders there is only 1 paragraph in Handbook1, sec 17.3.11 on Sex Education which refers to the Parent's Guide book.  Perhaps LDS family services could hold more training specifically for leaders and parents to coach them on interviewing, to help them avoid pitfalls, and to improve their understanding.  I'm taking a number of computer science machine learning courses online through udacity and stanford - these are micro or nanodegree certification programs.  Right now the church has the blessing/resources of an extensive educational network.  $2500 for a bachelor's degree in African countries for a latter-day saint through pathway program.    Why not invite or highly encourage bishops/counselors/RS presidents, etc to take courses on counseling, psychology, adolescence, child-development, marriage counseling so they could become "certified bishops" or "counselors"?   

 - infantalizing - well I suppose we await the return of Deborah and Huldah.

- agree with referring to or financing outside competent counseling/medical care, but sometimes bishops get pulled into the weeds without knowing it. 

- compensation i could see that, but there could be a bifurcation between the temporal matters and the spiritual counseling.  bishop1 - a certified counselor, and bishop2 or counselor1 or 2 an expert on financial matters helping families get on their feet again after a divorce, or loss of spouse, or unemployment, or educational rework, etc, etc. consumes a lot of time of our bishops and elder's quorum presidents.  It's so difficult to be an expert on the full spectrum of responsibility.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, blueglass said:

- "More access" -  Ok when I say more access I am aware of the bishop authorizing 10 free sessions, or continuous support if needed to psychologists, therapists through LDS Family services, call 1-801-240-1711, 1-800-453-3860 ext 2-1711, ldsfamilyservices.org or even outside sources if necessary.  I have authorized personally a number of these expense checks myself.  This is a great resource.  It's just that for training leaders there is only 1 paragraph in Handbook1, sec 17.3.11 on Sex Education which refers to the Parent's Guide book. 

I don't think bishops should be giving much counseling on matters pertaining to sexuality, except as to the parts emphasizing abstention from things (extra-marital sex, porn, etc.).  Other matters should probably be referred out to professional counselors.  And if a couple has problems with intimacy, that's not really something that falls to the bishop to sort out.  Professional counseling should to that.  

5 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Perhaps LDS family services could hold more training specifically for leaders and parents to coach them on interviewing, to help them avoid pitfalls, and to improve their understanding.  

I'd be open to that.

5 minutes ago, blueglass said:

I'm taking a number of computer science machine learning courses online through udacity and stanford - these are micro or nanodegree certification programs.  Right now the church has the blessing/resources of an extensive educational network.  $2500 for a bachelor's degree in African countries for a latter-day saint through pathway program.    Why not invite or highly encourage bishops/counselors/RS presidents, etc to take courses on counseling, psychology, adolescence, child-development, marriage counseling so they could become "certified bishops" or "counselors"?   

I think that runs the risk of the bishop trying to do too much.

5 minutes ago, blueglass said:

- agree with referring to or financing outside competent counseling/medical care, but sometimes bishops get pulled into the weeds without knowing it. 

In such cases he should pull himself back out, post haste.

5 minutes ago, blueglass said:

- compensation i could see that, but there could be a bifurcation between the temporal matters and the spiritual counseling.  bishop1 - a certified counselor, and bishop2 or counselor1 or 2 an expert on financial matters helping families get on their feet again after a divorce, or loss of spouse, or unemployment, or educational rework, etc, etc. consumes a lot of time of our bishops and elder's quorum presidents.  It's so difficult to be an expert on the full spectrum of responsibility.

Again, I think this is getting bishops in too deep.  

Bishops cannot be all things to all people.  Delegation is important.  Use of available resources is important.  Encouraging self-reliance is important.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Maestrophil said:

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.

If they truly believe that their childrens' well being is at risk, then that isn't selling their birthright for a bowl of porridge.

While I am all in favor of staying, uniting, and helping the "slow boat of the Church make positive strides", there is a message being sent that while it is okay to disagree, you can't be public about it.  So, if this couple feels that that this is a significant issue that impacts their children, they may feel powerless to do anything about it.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

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 can understand not wanting that too.  And given that the church allows his daughters to have him or his wife present, they didn't need to resign to keep it from happening to one of his girls.  Given that, resigning would make more sense if one was trying to have their views 'heard' than it does for keeping a child from a one-on-one interview.

It's sad all the way around though.

 

[bluebell]

1 hour 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. 

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? 

 

I know you didn't ask me, but I'm wondering, why does it matter?   I'm not sure what you are trying to do with this line of questioning.

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I can understand not wanting that too.  And given that the church allows his daughters to have him or his wife present, they didn't need to resign to keep it from happening to one of his girls.  

That's not entirely true as I've heard of instances in our stake already where parents have made that request and youth have still been pulled out to interview (at activities, etc.) without a parent being present.  It's already caused some problems for the leaders too.  You're still playing leader roulette if you get a Bishop who ignores the request if he can.

The only way there is a guarantee (or as close to being a 100% guarantee as possible) is for the church to require and enforce a 2 deep policy regarding these interviews with children and youth.  I highly doubt much if any abuse would be occurring (or inappropriate sexual questioning taking place behind closed doors) if there were always two adults present.

I believe this is where we are heading and I'll be surprised if this change does not eventually take place.  Especially with the exposure this is getting and all of the #metoo stuff out there.  Many in this next generation are riled up about all that (as others are too) and it's an issue they won't back down on.

Edited September 18, 2018 by ALarson

[bluebell]

Just now, ALarson said:

That's not entirely true as I've heard of instances in our stake already where parents have made that request and youth have still been pulled out to interview (at activities, etc.) without a parent being present.  It's already caused some problems for the leaders too.

The only way there is a guarantee (or as close to being a 100% guarantee as possible) if for the church to require and enforce a 2 deep policy regarding these interviews with children and youth.  I highly doubt much if any abuse would be occurring (or inappropriate sexual questioning) if there were always two adults present.

Right now, the church requires that leaders allow parents to be present if they request it.  If ward leaders are going rogue and not following that, what guarantee is there that they would follow a two deep requirement?  

It seems like it would be just as easy (and just as hard) to enforce having an adult present if requested as it would be to enforce two deep leadership.  I don't see how having a different policy that leaders could also ignore if they chose would guarantee anything.

[Abulafia]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I know you didn't ask me, but I'm wondering, why does it matter?   I'm not sure what you are trying to do with this line of questioning.

Blue bell, I responded to Scott as to why I find the history significant.  In my opinion Sam has been excommunicated for asking for a change to tradition. Sometimes these things develop and take on an air of authority when they are just tradition. Uninspired tradition in my honest opinion. I know you disagree about the inspiration thing. 

People use scriptural precedent for beliefs a lot. There are none in this case. And I'd be interested to read where the practice was canonized as inspired by the First Presidency. 

If it is simply tradition, then it isn't too difficult to change when the negative aspects of the tradition are highlighted.

 

Edited September 18, 2018 by Abulafia

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Interesting.

-Smac

Is sharing an opinion coercive?

[JulieM]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That's not entirely true as I've heard of instances in our stake already where parents have made that request and youth have still been pulled out to interview (at activities, etc.) without a parent being present.  It's already caused some problems for the leaders too.  You're still playing leader roulette if you get a Bishop who ignores the request if he can.

The only way there is a guarantee (or as close to being a 100% guarantee as possible) is for the church to require and enforce a 2 deep policy regarding these interviews with children and youth.  I highly doubt much if any abuse would be occurring (or inappropriate sexual questioning taking place behind closed doors) if there were always two adults present.

I believe this is where we are heading and I'll be surprised if this change does not eventually take place.  Especially with the exposure this is getting and all of the #metoo stuff out there.  Many in this next generation are riled up about all that (as others are too) and it's an issue they won't back down on.

Exactly!  We’ve had problems in our area too with leaders still interviewing one on one after parents have asked to be present.

The 2 deep is in every other calling where kids are involved.  It needs to be a strict policy for interviews or the one on ones will still happen (even if requests are made sometimes).

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Exactly!  We’ve had problems in our area too with leaders still interviewing one on one after parents have asked to be present.

The 2 deep is in every other calling where kids are involved.  It needs to be a strict policy for interviews or the one on ones will still happen (even if requests are made sometimes).

I'm really glad that I never had to face this. As you might remember, I had said I would ask to be released as bishop rather than do chaperoned interviews, but my family's moving to another city coincided with this change (within a few months; we moved in July). My ward was very much not dialed into the whole online Mormonism climate, and I don't think anyone currently in my ward would ever even ask for chaperoned interviews, let alone insist on them. 

I think if it were more of a request like the current policy, and not mandated, like you are suggesting, I might have grown to be okay with it on a case by case basis. But requiring chaperoning, or windows in the office, or eliminating interviews altogether? No. 

I *would* support having temple/priesthood interviews only, and eliminating the annual and semi-annual youth interviews. But our ward had 65 youth, so it was daunting to do them. I think if a bishopric knows its youth well enough, the need for interviews can be fulfilled simply by doing the temple ones. Less interviews, all around. 

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Blue bell, I responded to Scott as to why I find the history significant.  In my opinion Sam has been excommunicated for asking for a change to tradition. Sometimes these things develop and take on an air of authority when they are just tradition. Uninspired tradition in my honest opinion. I know you disagree about the inspiration thing. 

People use scriptural precedent for beliefs a lot. There are none in this case. And I'd be interested to read where the practice was canonized as inspired by the First Presidency. 

If it is simply tradition, then it isn't too difficult to change when the negative aspects of the tradition are highlighted.

 

But the information that we have received is that Sam wasn't excommunicated for wanting a change in policy.  It was because of the things he said and did when his requests for a change in tradition was denied.  It's hard to discuss this if we don't stick the facts that we do know. 

But, I do agree that it wouldn't be difficult to change it.  The issue is that our leaders (and a lot of members) don't believe it should be changed (at least not at this point-that could change in the future).  Just because something is easy to change doesn't mean that it should be changed.  

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm really glad that I never had to face this. As you might remember, I had said I would ask to be released as bishop rather than do chaperoned interviews, but my family's moving to another city coincided with this change (within a few months; we moved in July). My ward was very much not dialed into the whole online Mormonism climate, and I don't think anyone currently in my ward would ever even ask for chaperoned interviews, let alone insist on them. 

I think if it were more of a request like the current policy, and not mandated, like you are suggesting, I might have grown to be okay with it on a case by case basis. But requiring chaperoning, or windows in the office, or eliminating interviews altogether? No. 

I *would* support having temple/priesthood interviews only, and eliminating the annual and semi-annual youth interviews. But our ward had 65 youth, so it was daunting to do them. I think if a bishopric knows its youth well enough, the need for interviews can be fulfilled simply by doing the temple ones. Less interviews, all around. 

Sincere question:  Can I ask why you would have resigned rather than doing chaperoned interviews?

As a counselor, I had to do the semi-annual interviews and temple recommend interviews.  Whenever possible, for the semi-annual interviews, I would ask the youth to just walk around the building with me.  I felt like that kept it more casual and comfortable (except in Winter... not always comfortable).  I didn't like doing the temple recommend interviews.

When I think about having those interviews chaperoned:  I think I would have preferred it for the temple recommend interviews.  For the semi-annual interviews it would have changed the tone but I think the semi-annual interviews can be done sitting out in the open just out of earshot of people.

[ALarson]

40 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm really glad that I never had to face this. As you might remember, I had said I would ask to be released as bishop rather than do chaperoned interviews, but my family's moving to another city coincided with this change (within a few months; we moved in July).

I think the word "chaperoned" is putting quite the negative spin on the two deep interview, but I know (and understand) that's how you feel.  Do you feel the same about all of those required to adhere to the two deep policy of the church regarding other callings with children and youth (that they are being "chaperoned")? Or are they simply partners and working together?  

That's how I'd see the two deep work with the interviews (working together).  I'd not ever mind being a part of an interview with the Bishop and having a discussion with the youth or child involved (or having a parent present).

My Bishop has really enjoyed having several parents come in with their youth and just last week was able to talk about how they should discuss and learn about the law of chastity as a family (age appropriate) and they left planning on doing that as a home evening topic.  It was very positive and I feel where it should be discussed rather than with an adult (that some kids don't know well at all), alone and behind closed doors.

A two deep interview policy would also be a protection for the adult leader as well.  I know my Bishop would welcome it.

Edited September 18, 2018 by ALarson

[LoudmouthMormon]

Random things in my world as a Ward Finance Clerk:

I write maybe 2-8 checks every week.  The breakdown, in order of frequency: 
1- Reimbursement requests for people who spent ward budget money (nursery snacks, toner cartridges, BSOA camp fees, food for the Relief Society event, etc.)
2- Bishop helping people in need (car payments, power/phone/gas bills, mortgage payment, etc - fast offerings funds)
3- Professional Counseling fees (not LDSSS, these are professional counselors in private practice.  Marriage counseling, family counseling, individual counseling.  I've made more than a couple of payments for youth seeing counselors.  These are also fast offerings funds.)
4- Moving money between ward and stake at the stake's request. (Buncha tight-fisted misers, those stake people)

#2 and #3 are heartwarming.  I'm grateful to have a small part in the church's welfare system.  I'm never privy to the details, just the individuals involved.  Sometimes it's publicly known there's a stillborn child, or a marriage falling apart, and it's obvious why someone is going to counseling.  Most of the time, from my clueless position, the bishop might as well had put all our names in a hat and just randomly drawn a name for me to pay a bill or pay for counseling.  

From where I'm standing, privacy and confidentiality between you and your bishop are wonderful, valuable, worthwhile things.  Including, at times, minors.

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think the word "chaperoned" is putting quite the negative spin on the two deep interview, but I know (and understand) that's how you feel.  Do you feel the same about all of those required to adhere to the two deep policy of the church regarding other callings with children and youth (that they are being "chaperoned")? Or are they simply partners and working together?  

That's how I'd see the two deep work with the interviews (working together).  I'd not ever mind being a part of an interview with the Bishop and having a discussion with the youth or child involved (or having a parent present).

My Bishop has really enjoyed having several parents come in with their youth and just last week was able to talk about how they should discuss and learn about the law of chastity as a family (age appropriate) and they left planning on doing that as a home evening topic.  It was very positive and I feel where it should be discussed rather than with an adult (that some kids don't know well at all), alone and behind closed doors.

A two deep interview policy would also be a protection for the adult leader as well.  I know my Bishop would welcome it.

This is exactly right. Changing the policy would protect children, but I also believe it protects good men who are just trying to do what they've been asked, yet are vulnerable to misunderstandings and accusations.

[JAHS]

15 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Random things in my world as a Ward Finance Clerk:

I write maybe 2-8 checks every week.  The breakdown, in order of frequency: 
1- Reimbursement requests for people who spent ward budget money (nursery snacks, toner cartridges, BSOA camp fees, food for the Relief Society event, etc.)
2- Bishop helping people in need (car payments, power/phone/gas bills, mortgage payment, etc - fast offerings funds)
3- Professional Counseling fees (not LDSSS, these are professional counselors in private practice.  Marriage counseling, family counseling, individual counseling.  I've made more than a couple of payments for youth seeing counselors.  These are also fast offerings funds.)
4- Moving money between ward and stake at the stake's request. (Buncha tight-fisted misers, those stake people)

#2 and #3 are heartwarming.  I'm grateful to have a small part in the church's welfare system.  I'm never privy to the details, just the individuals involved.  Sometimes it's publicly known there's a stillborn child, or a marriage falling apart, and it's obvious why someone is going to counseling.  Most of the time, from my clueless position, the bishop might as well had put all our names in a hat and just randomly drawn a name for me to pay a bill or pay for counseling.  

From where I'm standing, privacy and confidentiality between you and your bishop are wonderful, valuable, worthwhile things.  Including, at times, minors.

I am also a ward finance clerk and your 1-4 breakdown of items are almost exactly what I see also. I am also pretty clueless about payments for counseling. The Bishop hands me a bill and I pay it.  No details required.

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is exactly right. Changing the policy would protect children, but I also believe it protects good men who are just trying to do what they've been asked, yet are vulnerable to misunderstandings and accusations.

I really don't think it protects children.  I haven't seen any evidence that the child abuse rate in the US has fallen any due to two deep leadership requirements.

It does protect adults and the institution from liability, which I believe is its true purpose.

I don't think most adults, when they are in the presence of minor children feel an increased desire to abuse children, just because they are alone with them.

Those adults who are inclined toward child abuse aren't usually letting rules like two deep leadership get in the way of their evil. 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

Those adults who are inclined toward child abuse aren't usually letting rules like two deep leadership get in the way of their evil. 

Are you suggesting that abusers are just as likely to assault or sexually harass a child with a second adult in the room?

[Danzo]

17 minutes ago, Gray said:

Are you suggesting that abusers are just as likely to assault or sexually harass a child with a second adult in the room?

I am suggesting that abusers will find a way to be alone with a child, no matter what rule is in place.

These types of people are not restrained by rules.

[Gray]

10 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I am suggesting that abusers will find a way to be alone with a child, no matter what rule is in place.

These types of people are not restrained by rules.

So, we should make it easier for them to get alone with a child?

[rodheadlee]

18 hours ago, Abulafia said:

I don't believe that scripture supports the need for one and one interviews with minors or even adults. The history of confession within the LDS church, like most things, has developed and changed imho.

LostinDC ask for scripture about a middleman so I gave it to him

[rongo]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Sincere question:  Can I ask why you would have resigned rather than doing chaperoned interviews?

Sure!

I believe deeply that priesthood keys are important, and that bishop's interviews are important, too, as designed and constituted. Chaperoning them makes them completely different --- sort of a Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Interviews (observing it by a third party fundamentally changes it). The unchaperoned, traditional interview is not the same thing as the chaperoned one. I didn't want to act in my capacity as bishop with what I consider to be a charade of an interview process. And I say that as a father of four children, boys and a girl. I want my children to also have one-on-one interviews with their leaders.

As a counselor, I had to do the semi-annual interviews and temple recommend interviews.  Whenever possible, for the semi-annual interviews, I would ask the youth to just walk around the building with me.  I felt like that kept it more casual and comfortable (except in Winter... not always comfortable).  I didn't like doing the temple recommend interviews.

I did like doing them. I spoke with parents and youth multiple times about the questions (here is a copy of them, let's talk about what they mean and what you are being asked). Nobody was blind-sided in my interviews, although you always find people (adults, too) who don't understand what is being asked. Part of the job is making sure people understand these things. They are important. 

When I think about having those interviews chaperoned:  I think I would have preferred it for the temple recommend interviews.  For the semi-annual interviews it would have changed the tone but I think the semi-annual interviews can be done sitting out in the open just out of earshot of people.

I think people can and do differ on this.