Sam Young is Excommunicated

[rockpond]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

CFR that “voting the wrong way will get you punished.”

I am not answering the CFR but I will say that I have good reason to believe that an opposing vote, given in public, on the Q12 or FP would put my recommend in jeopardy (this is based on the experience of friends of mine in the stake).

[Meerkat]

On 9/16/2018 at 10:20 PM, lostindc said:

This won’t change until worthiness interviews are watered down or completely removed.  These leaders are susceptible and some can’t control themselves and are placed in a role they abuse.  This problem is way more massive than posters on this board know and it’s going to be a process of exposing how bad it’s gotten.

What are you talking about???  The Lord, our Savior has gone to extreme lengths to help relieve the burden of sin, guilt and sorrow that we carry when we are unrepentant.  Bishops, and Missionary Zone Leaders help new members repent by helping them identify and confess serious sins.  Leaders should always be sensitive in carrying out that sacred duty.  They should not avoid it.

Bishops help youth understand behaviors that can drive the Spirit and testimonies away.  Those behaviors, including pornography and it's attendant activities, can ruin a person's life and family.  Those are Gospel subjects that must not be ignored.  Most bishops are kind and sensitive.  Most of those subjects can be treated in a wholesome manner in Bishop's Youth Discussion.  Hopefully, the youth who need to confess will respond by seeking an interview with the bishop.  If they don't, the bishop still needs to reach out and find a sensitive way to ask the important questions.  If the bishop fails to ask, he may be standing between the sinner and their Redeemer.  

I remember being interviewed as a new convert.  Each sin I confessed lifted a burden.  A few years later, we had a priesthood lesson on unresolved sin.  I was convicted.  There were things I had forgotten and not repented of that affected my peace.  When I met with the bishop, he said "You've done what the Lord required of you.  Now you can forget about it.  That's what I'm going to do."  That's all there was to it in my case, and my peace was restored.

That's the Lord's way.  I hope people will begin to think about how important confession is, and how important it is for each sinner to be able to confess to their bishop.

Edited September 19, 2018 by Meerkat

[Judd]

So I known that I’m a few pages behind as it’s been hard to keep up, but here are my thoughts after having listened to the recording:

The rustling frequently heard is pretty clearly movement of an individual with a mic on them, so I think a “bugged room” hypothesis is out. 

Next, the voice of the stake president is clearly a distance away. There was previous speculation as to why Young’s presentation is not heard. Having listened to it, I’d posit that one reasonably strong explanation for his absence in the recording is that it could identify the source of the recording. The only verbal sounds you hear from the mic’d body is throat clearing at around ~7:25. 

The only part that it appears to possibly have been edited/snipped is right around 12:30 where the SP starts his segue into transitioning to giving him the floor, but it seems there’s a bit of a jump in the SP’s speech and context, where perhaps someone’s comment had been edited out. I could be wrong on this, but it would require diving in a bit more on the audio. 

In any case, I find the defense of this fascinating. We’re throwing up any other possible explanation to avoid the patently high probability of this recording’s origin. 

I suspect that this issue doesn’t really matter to anyone, and even in a hypothetical where this was proven to originate with Young or under his direction, the discussion would quickly move back to other issues of how he’s been wronged, how he’s in a tough situation, or simply pull it back to his message. I think many may simply be offended as what they see as fault-finding with Young that distracts from his message, which itself contains an arguable level of irony.

Though an action like this would be a small hit to his credibility (which wouldn’t sway anyone’s opinion on either side), I think it’s fairly meaningless from the perspective of defending Young’s message, which is why I’m a bit baffled that some are invested enough to argue for something that likely has (in my estimation, and trying to be generous) a <10% chance of being true (that he wasn’t involved with the recording). It reminds me much of people so entrenched in “defending the faith” that they will take some very inane positions to defend something about the church / it’s leaders / Joseph Smith / etc. that needs no defense and ultimately has no bearing on the underlying truthfulness of the message. Hopefully that idea resonates somewhat with many so quick to dismiss the painfully obvious.

[Calm]

I think there is an appeal to many supporting Young that there was at least one HC secretly supportive as well, even if not brave enough to identify himself.  I don't think it is solely about defending Young from being labeled a liar.

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think there is an appeal to many supporting Young that there was at least one HC secretly supportive as well, even if not brave enough to identify himself.  I don't think it is solely about defending Young from being labeled a liar.

This sounds like a variation of all the fantasies that Elder Uchtdorf was dog-whistling to faithless progressives when he served in the First Presidency because he was secretly on their side. Good point.

Edited September 19, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Judd]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think there is an appeal to many supporting Young that there was at least one HC secretly supportive as well, even if not brave enough to identify himself.  I don't think it is solely about defending Young from being labeled a liar.

Maybe, but I’m more inclined to think that’s the narrative that someone such as NNN wants everyone, and especially stake leadership, to assume. It was an hour meeting where 3/4 of that meeting was Young, yet we have no audio of it, and I presume the reason that wasn’t released is that it would make obvious that the microphone was on his person. But, hey, may as well release under “Alma” to fuel discussion, and fear of a mole, such as we are having.

Edited September 19, 2018 by Judd

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I always dreaded sitting down with a Beehive and asking “Do you live the law of chastity?” Only to have her reply:  What’s that?

I've always been the counsellor over Young Men, so I've never had that experience with a Beehive, but I've had it with heaps of deacons and even a few teachers. (I've even had some ask, 'Is that about not drinking or smoking?') My response was always, 'The Law of Chastity teaches us that we shouldn't engage in sexual behaviour outside of marriage or do things that will make that harder'. I never once had a boy who didn't know what I was talking about at that point.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Duplicate.

Edited September 19, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

54 minutes ago, Judd said:

Maybe, but I’m more inclined to think that’s the narrative that someone such as NNN wants everyone, and especially stake leadership, to assume. It was an hour meeting where 3/4 of that meeting was Young, yet we have no audio of it, and I presume the reason that wasn’t released is that it would make obvious that the microphone was on his person. But, hey, may as well release under “Alma” to fuel discussion, and fear of a mole, such as we are having.

How much do HCs speak at all?  It would identify anyone who was wearing it if they spoke.  And if they only edited out the one voice, someone in the meeting might remember and identify them.

I do agree the most like option is Sam Young or his wife, but I do not rule out other possibilities.  Given there are those who recorded their discussions with leaders even when they said they weren't recording or weren't going to or implied by statement or silence they weren't recording, since I don't know Young I assume, however, most likely he follows this pattern.

Edited September 19, 2018 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours ago, ttribe said:

If you have a fool-proof abuser detector handy, please share.

No one, of course, does, but we have some patterns. These are the most up-to-date child sexual abuse data from the nation where I live:

For female victims (74% of total), abusers are listed from most to least common:

• another male relative (35.1%)
• father or stepfather (16.5%)
• family friend (also 16.5%)
• acquaintance or neighbour (15.4%)
• another known person (11%)
• stranger (8.6%)
• another female relative (1%)
• mother or stepmother (0.6%)

For male victims (26% of total), abusers are listed from most to least common:

• another known person (27.3%)
• stranger (18.3%)
• another male relative (16.4%)
• acquaintance or neighbour (16.2%)
• family friend (15.6%)
• father or stepfather (5%)

Significantly, 34% of this child sexual abuse is perpetrated by other children (under age 18); 7% of sexual abuse is perpetrated by children under the age of 12. The younger the child victim, the more likely it is that the perpetrator is another young person. Other children and young people, for example, are the offenders in 43% of assaults on children under age 6.

Edited September 19, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[ttribe]

5 hours ago, Danzo said:

Life is full of risks. 

You don't get to apply your flippant attitude to my child. Ever.

[Abulafia]

5 hours ago, Meerkat said:

 

That's the Lord's way.  I hope people will begin to think about how important confession is, and how important it is for each sinner to be able to confess to their bishop.

CFR on private confession in a one on one situation with a priest,  being the *Lord's* way.

The Lord has never said anything of the kind. Not in the Old Testament. Not in the New Testament. Not in the Book of Mormon. Not in the Doctrine and Covenants. Not in the Pearl of Great Price. Not in any formal First Presidency message that I can find.

 

 

[Gray]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Stop using Latin terms. Stop it, I say! Happy Jack Wagon and California Boy don’t approve. 

Quisque comodeus est

[Gray]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

CFR that “voting the wrong way will get you punished.”

Temple recommend questions:

4 Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

In other words, if you vote opposed, no temple recommend.

[Gray]

7 hours ago, kllindley said:

 

Do you have any actual evidence to support the notion that a child is more likely to be abused by an LDS Bishop than by their parents?

Do you have any actual evidence that a child is more likely to be bitten by a strange dog in a street than the family dog?

[Gray]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why is it a poor argument? Some parents (a good many, in fact) are abusers. 

Complete this sentence: A mandatory “two deep” policy should not apply to parents because _____________ . 

I'm sure you're smart enough to figure it out, but I'll humor you. Children live with their parents. That's the default state. A two deep policy cannot possibly be implemented at home.

But for situation where kids are temporarily interacting with strangers, a two deep policy will protect them if one of the adults happens to be an abuser. Just like not letting your child wrestle with a stray dog will protect them from getting bitten by stray dogs. Maybe the stray dog is friendly, but you really don't know. They're a stray. It's still possible that Fido at home will turn bad, but at least you have experience with Fido. He's been a good dog so far. But a responsible parent exercises caution with their children around stray dogs.

A good parent knows he himself is not an abuser. But a good parent also knows he doesn't know for sure if the bishop or the Sunday school teacher is and exercises caution. Statistically speaking there are probably one or two pedophiles in every ward at any given time.

 

Edited September 19, 2018 by Gray

[Gray]

7 hours ago, Danzo said:

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Abusers can be children or adults. So if you really want to be safe, you would have to restrict one on one with anyone at any time.  Especially with parents, who are a significant percentage of abusers.

Spouses should never be alone with each other as well since spousal abuse is also significant.

I don't want my children to have to live that way.

 

If I were to say I make my child wear a helmet when riding a bike, I suppose you'd attack that position and say "why don't you make them wear the helmet all the time? Most accidents happen in the home." And I'd say you were trolling at that point.

[Gray]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

But one could use the same argument for allowing one on one interviews with minors because some may choose to report abuse to bishops when they wouldn't report it to others.  In this case, the bishop interview is the seat belt. 

No one should report a crime to their bishop, at least not as a first step. Bishops are looking out for the good name of the church and generally don't know how to handle the situation appropriately, IMO. Children should report to a teacher.

[Gray]

10 hours ago, Danzo said:

I know it can be scary, but don't think "trust no one" is a healthy message to send to our children.

 

Kids are way too sheltered. Only a hover parent would tell their child not to accept candy from strangers. Go ahead and hop in that windowless van, Timmy! I'm sure you'll learn some good life lessons.

Edited September 19, 2018 by Gray

[Hamba Tuhan]

33 minutes ago, Gray said:

Do you have any actual evidence that a child is more likely to be bitten by a strange dog in a street than the family dog?

'Pet dogs - owned by a child's family, relative or close friends - are responsible for 84 per cent of dog bites, a new study has found. Another 8 per cent of children were bitten by a neighbour's dogs, meaning only 8 per cent were bitten by a stranger's dog, the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons Congress in Sydney heard last week' (link).

Edited September 19, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

No one should report a crime to their bishop, at least not as a first step. Bishops are looking out for the good name of the church and generally don't know how to handle the situation appropriately, IMO. Children should report to a teacher.

I don't think you get to decide on behalf of any victim whom s/he is required to trust.

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I've always been the counsellor over Young Men, so I've never had that experience with a Beehive, but I've had it with heaps of deacons and even a few teachers. (I've even had some ask, 'Is that about not drinking or smoking?') My response was always, 'The Law of Chastity teaches us that we shouldn't engage in sexual behaviour outside of marriage or do things that will make that harder'. I never once had a boy who didn't know what I was talking about at that point.

Yeah, it isn’t hard to explain but when you are sitting across from a Beehive who just turned 12 (and seems younger than that) I was wishing that the parents had had the conversation with her. 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

No one should report a crime to their bishop, at least not as a first step. Bishops are looking out for the good name of the church and generally don't know how to handle the situation appropriately, IMO. Children should report to a teacher.

Yeah, and the bishops are to report it to Kirton and McConkie who will most likely pay the victims and they will sign something and be silent, is that how it goes? And if true, then what? Maybe the abuser is helped through so called repentance.

Edited September 19, 2018 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

Is there a recording of Sam's side in the disciplinary counsel?

[Duncan]

17 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Yeah, and the bishops are to report it to Kirton and McConkie who will most likely pay the victims and they will sign something and be silent, is that how it goes? And if true, then what? Maybe the abuser is helped through so called repentance.

I should get a scheme going, tell my Bishop something, he phones it in to Kirton and McConkie and I get the cash, American dosh too! and then I split it with my Bishop🤑