Sam Young is Excommunicated

[provoman]

9 hours ago, rockpond said:

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).

Can a person be who does not sustain the leadership of the Church hold a Temple Recommend.

[Meerkat]

2 hours ago, Abulafia said:

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.

"29 Therefore I say unto you, Go; and whosoever transgresseth against me, him shall ye judge according to the sins which he has committed; and if he confess his sins before thee and me, and repenteth in the sincerity of his heart, him shall ye forgive, and I will forgive him also."  Mosiah 26:29 the Lord speaking to Alma, who had been given authority over the Church in verse 8.

"When we have sinned, Satan often tries to convince us that the unselfish thing to do is to protect others from the devastation of the knowledge of our sins, including avoiding confessing to our bishop, who can bless our lives through his priesthood keys as a common judge in Israel. The truth, however, is that the unselfish and Christlike thing to do is to confess and repent. This is Heavenly Father’s great plan of redemption."  Ensign, Nov. 2016 "The Great Plan of Redemption

"13 He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy." Prov. 28:13

There are many references under confession, repentance, forgiveness, etc. in the Topical Guide.

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, provoman said:

Can a person be who does not sustain the leadership of the Church hold a Temple Recommend.

That would seem to be between the individual, their priesthood leader, and the Lord. 

[Abulafia]

1 minute ago, Meerkat said:

"29 Therefore I say unto you, Go; and whosoever transgresseth against me, him shall ye judge according to the sins which he has committed; and if he confess his sins before thee and me, and repenteth in the sincerity of his heart, him shall ye forgive, and I will forgive him also."  Mosiah 26:29 the Lord speaking to Alma, who had been given authority over the Church in verse 8.

"When we have sinned, Satan often tries to convince us that the unselfish thing to do is to protect others from the devastation of the knowledge of our sins, including avoiding confessing to our bishop, who can bless our lives through his priesthood keys as a common judge in Israel. The truth, however, is that the unselfish and Christlike thing to do is to confess and repent. This is Heavenly Father’s great plan of redemption."  Ensign, Nov. 2016 "The Great Plan of Redemption

"13 He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy." Prov. 28:13

There are many references under confession, repentance, forgiveness, etc. in the Topical Guide.

Oh, public confession is mentioned, confession to God is mentioned. A general.. I/we have sinned and recognise my/our unworthy state is mentioned.. but not private one to one (detailed and explicit) confession to a priest. 

Here's a beautiful example from the Prayer of Mannaseh. [1:9]

"the sins I have committed are more in number than the sand of the sea; my transgressions are multiplied, O Lord, they are multiplied! I am not worthy to look up and see the height of heaven because of the multitude of my iniquities. I am weighted down with many an iron fetter, so that I am rejected because of my sins, and I have no relief; for I have provoked your wrath and have done what is evil in your sight, setting up abominations and multiplying offenses."

General. Non specific. 

What concerns me so deeply about the LDS approach to worthiness, is it assumes anyone can reach a state of *worthiness*. In truth, given Jesus appeared to state that *lusting* was as bad as committing the deed, who is worthy?  

Again, not discussing criminal acts here, which is a different ball game. 

 

[rongo]

19 minutes ago, provoman said:

Can a person be who does not sustain the leadership of the Church hold a Temple Recommend.

A leader would at least be within his rights in withholding it ("Do you sustain the president, members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"). That is what those three questions ask, after all. 

Edited September 19, 2018 by rongo

[HappyJackWagon]

14 hours ago, Danzo said:

Are you aware of any data that suggests child abuse rates are lower as a result of two deep policies?

 

I really don't believe that it is effective or desirable to build a bubble around our children.  

We can't shield them forever from harmful people or situations.  

A child being alone with an adult is a healthy, normal interaction with 99% of adults.  I certainly benefited growing up in my interactions with other adults, often one on one, or in small groups.  I have interacted with minors on a one on one basis many times. It did not put any of the minors I interacted with in any danger.  My children have interacted with adults as well.  Interacting with people (adults or children) I believe is very healthy. You learn what is normal so you can better recognize when things are off. 

There is nothing magical or mystical about segregating people by above 18 and below 18.  People below 18 are just as capable of being good (or abusive) as people over 18.

If not careful we can, in our zeal to protect our children keep them from living.

 

 

I'm seeing an interesting divide between people who feel like the church already protects children adequately, and those who don't. I'm curious what the ratio would be. Do you think only 1 out of 10 members would want greater safety precautions to match general societal norms? Or would it be 2 out of 10? 3, 4, 5 out of 10? This would obviously be a guess unless someone wanted to create a poll on this site.

But at what point would members desire for greater safety precautions override those who are happy with the status quo? Should the majority opinion rule either way, or would the position towards greater safety precautions deserve some kind of preferential treatment.

IOW- if 4 out of 10 members felt the church needed to do more to protect the children, would that 40% be significant enough that changes should be made? Or are they out of luck until they hit 51%.

[HappyJackWagon]

14 hours ago, rongo said:

Absolutely!

Also, one criticism from people who don't like the Church is that the interviews "groom" people to accept the patriarchal hierarchy and system. There is truth to that, but I don't accept the bad spin on that. I think watering down the interview process is a step in the direction of weakening regard for and reverence for priesthood keys. Pressure will always be applied towards eliminating interviews altogether. For adults, too. 

You seem to accept that the process of one-on-one interviews could groom children toward thinking that is normal and appropriate behavior, and therefore could be susceptible to someone down the road trying the same thing for nefarious reasons. But you also "don't accept the bad spin on that". I'm totally confused by that comment. Is there a good spin on grooming?

I know that priesthood keys are important to you. But I think there's a danger in treating them so reverentially that keys become an end unto itself.  Keys are a tool toward something greater. Keys are intended to aid leaders in leading people into relationship with Christ. But if keys are abused, or even if keys have the potential for being misused, there is nothing wrong with making adjustments the practical ways in which they are used. Keys may be doctrinal, but the specifics on how they are used are often policy. IMO- it is more important to protect the individual and support their relationship with Christ than to allow bad behavior out of fear that changing policies could weaken priesthood keys. Keys are quite secondary in this scenario.

[rongo]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm seeing an interesting divide between people who feel like the church already protects children adequately, and those who don't. I'm curious what the ratio would be. Do you think only 1 out of 10 members would want greater safety precautions to match general societal norms? Or would it be 2 out of 10? 3, 4, 5 out of 10?

This is an interesting question, and I think people on both sides of this divide would continue to differ on the hypothetical results. In my own experience, I think the number of active (attending, serving, and tithe-paying) who are up in arms about it is very, very small. I had no one of this description on my radar in four different wards (twice as a counselor, and twice as a bishop) in a very typical stake in an area of strength for the Church. 

This would obviously be a guess unless someone wanted to create a poll on this site.

Which illustrates the problem. This, and other hot button issues de jour, are only a "thing" for people heavily dialed into the online discussion board culture. Most active members actually aren't. It can seem to us like our tempests in a teapot are raging throughout the Church, but they really aren't. 

But at what point would members desire for greater safety precautions override those who are happy with the status quo?

We'll all know when we've reached that tipping point. It won't be a controversial discussion point online.  

Should the majority opinion rule either way, or would the position towards greater safety precautions deserve some kind of preferential treatment?

Prior to the obvious tipping point? Of course. The default setting of normative Mormonism should continue to carry the day. Frustration with this is what pushes the Kate Kellys and the Sam Youngs of the Church into crossing the adversarial line. 

IOW- if 4 out of 10 members felt the church needed to do more to protect the children, would that 40% be significant enough that changes should be made? Or are they out of luck until they hit 51%.

Feels like an Abraham/God negotiation, doesn't it?   I would say that 40% of active membership would be well beyond the tipping point, and it wouldn't be controversial because everyone would feel the need and urgency. I think we are far, far, far below that number of active members who actually feel that way.

ALarson and JulieM have said that they have parents who are insisting on chaperoned interviews. Would either of them put the number of families insisting on this at 40% of their total active families with youth? Or, are we talking 2 or 3 sets of parents here?

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You seem to accept that the process of one-on-one interviews could groom children toward thinking that is normal and appropriate behavior, and therefore could be susceptible to someone down the road trying the same thing for nefarious reasons. But you also "don't accept the bad spin on that". I'm totally confused by that comment. Is there a good spin on grooming?

Potato, po-tah-toe. I reject the whole "grooming" argument as made by critics of interviews. What I meant was I see positive reasons for the enculturation (critics would call it grooming or brainwashing) that interviews provide in forming and informing members' interactions with priesthood authority. 

Critics' argument is that, even when a "good" bishop does and says nothing "bad" in the interviews, the very interviews themselves teach that it is okay to be subjected to questioning like this, and so members are likely to "go along to get along" if and when they later have a "bad" bishop. I personally find such a line of argument to be kind of nutty and paranoid, but then it is a moral panic approach.

 

[Gray]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

'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).

Maybe that's because most people have the good sense to exercise caution with their children (and themselves) around strange dogs. 🤔

People are more likely to be bitten by a dog than a shark. But most people have the good sense not to swim in shark-infested waters. 🤔

Edited September 19, 2018 by Gray

[rockpond]

16 minutes ago, rongo said:

A leader would at least be within his rights in withholding it ("Do you sustain the president, members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"). That is what those three questions ask, after all. 

Yes, it could be withheld.  It could also be granted.

[Gray]

55 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 don't know what happens every time, but that pattern seems to come up too often to give me any confidence that reporting crimes to bishops and bishops alone is wise. Kids should be taught to report to a teacher or a guidance counselor if a family member is abusing them. Educators are mandated by law to report to the police.

[Gray]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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

Straw man. I'm saying children should be taught to report to someone who can be trusted to take the information to law enforcement. Bishops are not that someone.

[ALarson]

36 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm seeing an interesting divide between people who feel like the church already protects children adequately, and those who don't. I'm curious what the ratio would be. Do you think only 1 out of 10 members would want greater safety precautions to match general societal norms? Or would it be 2 out of 10? 3, 4, 5 out of 10? 

I think it's still in the minority, but it definitely is a number that is growing and I believe it will continue to grow.  People are becoming much more aware of this issue (just from it being in the news and then add the #youtoo movement and other numbers of abuses being exposed).  Also, it's a big topic and issue for the youth and younger marrieds.

I believe even 10 years ago, most members rarely even thought about the risks of their youth being alone with an adult male who was a church leader, and some still don't worry about it at all .  But there are many now who do (and we are having more and more parents discuss it with us in our ward).  That's why the leaders have already made changes and why they are allowing another adult to be in the room when requested.  For some, that will be enough of a precaution.....but for others (like my niece who I posted about earlier), it is not enough.

I do believe things will continue to evolve and that eventually interviews will be two deep for youth and children.  

Edited September 19, 2018 by ALarson

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I believe even 10 years ago, most members rarely even thought about the risks of their youth being alone with an adult male who was a church leader and some still don't worry about it at all .  But there are many now who do (and we are having more and more parents discuss it with us in our ward). 

How many are you actually talking about? I would be fascinated to know exactly how many have insisted on this in your ward. I ask, because I am completely unaware of this phenomenon, personally. 

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, rongo said:

How many are you actually talking about? I would be fascinated to know exactly how many have insisted on this in your ward. I ask, because I am completely unaware of this phenomenon, personally. 

Currently we've had parents of 4 young women and 3 young men speak to the Bishop about making sure their youth are not interviewed alone.  There are varying strengths of objections, from what I've seen.  Some have put it in writing.  Some are fine if it's a YW leader or YM leader who their youth selects to go in with them.  But others are insisting it's one of them (parents) who are present.  My Bishop has honored all of their requests and has honestly had very positive experiences so far.  I think a lot of that is because of how supportive and positive he has been regarding their feelings and requests.

I do know that other parents have spoken to the Bishop (who have younger children) about their concerns (from hearing about the changes, etc.) and the Bishop has assured them that they will have a say regarding whether or not they want their child or youth interviewed one on one or if they will choose to be involved.

One thing I should add is that we do have some in our ward who have been very vocal about this issue (including the first parents to speak to the Bishop and put it in writing).  I know they have spoken to other parents about what they are doing and I do feel that may be why some others have come in and made the requests.  Also, they know the Bishop is supportive.

Edited September 19, 2018 by ALarson

[HappyJackWagon]

18 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think it's still in the minority, but it definitely is a number that is growing and I believe it will continue to grow.  People are becoming much more aware of this issue (just from it being in the news and then add the #youtoo movement and other numbers of abuses being exposed).  Also, it's a big topic and issue for the youth and younger marrieds.

I believe even 10 years ago, most members rarely even thought about the risks of their youth being alone with an adult male who was a church leader, and some still don't worry about it at all .  But there are many now who do (and we are having more and more parents discuss it with us in our ward).  That's why the leaders have already made changes and why they are allowing another adult to be in the room when requested.  For some, that will be enough of a precaution.....but for others (like my niece who I posted about earlier), it is not enough.

I do believe things will continue to evolve and that eventually interviews will be two deep for youth and children.  

I totally agree. We are only at the beginning of this issue. It will continue to develop and as awareness grows among members, both regarding issues outside and inside of the church, then policy will change. Like Rongo said, there will be a tipping point, we just don't know when that will occur or how it will look.

I'm curious how it will look if the church drags its heals and only relents after the tipping point among members. Will that show leadership, or will it illustrate simple pragmatism?

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Currently we've had parents of 4 young women and 3 young men speak to the Bishop about making sure their youth are not interviewed alone.  There are varying strengths of objections, from what I've seen.  Some have put it in writing.  Some are fine if it's a YW leader or YM leader who their youth selects to go in with them.  But others are insisting it's one of them (parents) who are present.  My Bishop has honored all of their requests and has honestly had very positive experiences so far.  I think a lot of that is because of how supportive and positive he has been regarding their feelings and requests.

I do know that other parents have spoken to the Bishop (who have younger children) about their concerns (from hearing about the changes, etc.) and the Bishop has assured them that they will have a say regarding whether or not they want their child or youth interviewed one on one or if they will choose to be involved.

One thing I should add is that we do have some in our ward who have been very vocal about this issue (including the first parents to speak to the Bishop and put it in writing).  I know they have spoken to other parents about what they are doing and I do feel that may be why some others have come in and made the requests.  Also, they know the Bishop is supportive.

That's interesting.  We haven't had any parents requesting to be in interviews.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I totally agree. We are only at the beginning of this issue. It will continue to develop and as awareness grows among members, both regarding issues outside and inside of the church, then policy will change. Like Rongo said, there will be a tipping point, we just don't know when that will occur or how it will look.

I'm curious how it will look if the church drags its heals and only relents after the tipping point among members. Will that show leadership, or will it illustrate simple pragmatism?

The tipping point is usually when revelation comes.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I totally agree. We are only at the beginning of this issue. It will continue to develop and as awareness grows among members, both regarding issues outside and inside of the church, then policy will change. Like Rongo said, there will be a tipping point, we just don't know when that will occur or how it will look.

I'm curious how it will look if the church drags its heals and only relents after the tipping point among members. Will that show leadership, or will it illustrate simple pragmatism?

I would hope they will at least try to stay out in front of it and not wait so long that it looks horrible for them (some already feel we're there though).  

What I do believe is that this younger generation is not going to be afraid to stand up and be vocal about their feelings.  (They do that on other issues, as well.)

[smac97]

12 hours ago, Gray said:

Quote

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

Which means that there is no meaningful common consent.

Yes, there is.  Entry to the temple is a privilege, not an inherent right of membership in the Church.

Your statement here doesn't make sense to me.

Quote

Imagine going to the polls in November. You cast your support for the candidate of your choice.

Okay.

Quote

On your way out you are ticked by a policeman for voting for the "wrong" candidate.

That doesn't work.  Your scenario here is not the same as you choosing to not adhere to the requirements for entry into the temple.

Quote

He says if you do it again or encourage others to do the same it will mean jail time.

Histrionics.

Quote

A vote that has no effect, other than voting the wrong way will get you punished.

You speak of entry to the temple as a presumptive right or entitlement.  That is not correct.

You speak as if entry to the temple has no conditions for entry.  That is not correct.

But in a sense, I think you may be correct.  Not being able to go to the temple is a form of discipline/punishment.  Being deprived of those blessings is an adverse consequence.  But since I know ahead of time what disqualifies me for temple attendance, I cannot in good faith claim surprise or dismay when I - through my own conduct - lose this privilege.

I admit that I don't really understand the overweening sense of entitlement I see in some members of the Church.  I'm thinking here of members who like to publicize their disrespect and contempt for the leaders of the Church, but then feign surprise and confusion when the natural and foreseeable consequences of that behavior comes around.  Many of these folks like to present themselves and their disagreement with the leadership of the Church as high-minded, I-insist-on-acting-according-to-my-principles sort of stuff.  But then they turn around and express surprise and dismay at the idea of actually having to face the consequences of that behavior.  I'm reminded of this story:

Quote

The case is on appeal because the plaintiff's case was dismissed because his lawyer failed to file his expert witness list by the deadline set by the court. As a result, the court refused to admit expert testimony on behalf of the plaintiff and dismissed the case.

Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the district court's deadline was unreasonable. But more than that, he claimed in his brief and oral argument that his failure to file the pleading in time was and act of civil disobedience against the high-handed practices of the district court judge, "like Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and the brave Americans who stood up to the tyranny of King George." (Coincidentally, the district court judge's first name was "George").

Which led to the following exchange:

 

Quote

JUDGE: Counsel, you say that your failure to meet the deadline was an act of civil disobedience, designed to demonstrate the injustice of the court's approach in this case? And that as a result, we should reverse the trial court's dismissal of the case and remand?

COUNSEL: Yes, your honor.

JUDGE: Now counsel, you do understand how "civil disobedience" works, don't you?

COUNSEL: I don't understand the question, your honor.

JUDGE: Well, the way that civil disobedience works is that you believe the law to be unjust, and so you are willing to be punished for violating it in order to demonstrate the injustice of the law. For this to be a true act of civil disobedience, therefore, you would have to be willing to accept the punishment, and through that willingness to accept the punishment, you demonstrate the injustice of the law. So, for instance, Martin Luther King's act of civil disobedience was his willingness to be arrested and go to jail in order to demonstrate the injustice of the laws. So, if this was a true act of civil disobedience on your part, aren't we obliged to affirm the ruling of the district court dismissing the case?

COUNSEL (after long pause): Um, your honor, I would like to amend my argument...

 

 

These sorts of "civil disobedience"-style theatrics do not impress me.  It all just comes across as virtue signalling to me.  Why?  Because acting "on principle" sounds just nifty in the abstract, but the protestations and hissy fits from people at having to face the natural and utterly foreseeable consequences of their behavior undermines the whole thing.

The conditions for entry to the temple are well-known.  I admire people who, on principle, forego a temple recommend because they cannot honestly answer that sustain the general authorities or local authorities of the Church.

I am decidedly less impressed with people who, despite knowing ahead of time that sustaining the leadership of the Church is a precondition to entering the temple, nevertheless express surprise and dismay at losing a temple recommend.  To me, it exposes the pretense of their behavior.  

To paraphrase the judge in the above story: "Well, the way that casting a dissenting vote works is that you believe the TR requirement of sustaining the leaders of the Church to be unjust, and so you are willing to be punished for violating it in order to demonstrate the injustice of the requirement. For this to be a true act of casting a dissenting vote, therefore, you would have to be willing to accept the punishment, and through that willingness to accept the punishment, you demonstrate the injustice of the requirement. So, for instance, Martin Luther King's act of civil disobedience was his willingness to be arrested and go to jail in order to demonstrate the injustice of the laws. So, if this was a true act of casting a dissenting vote on your part, isn't your bishop obliged to follow through with the natural and foreseeable consequences of your dissenting vote?"

FWIW, I think many of the people who are casting dissenting votes are doing themselves a disservice.  First, I think a lot of them are doing this more as a "virtue signalling" device than on principle (as demonstrated by the discourteous shouting in General Conference, rather than addressing the dissenting vote with their bishop or stake president). 

Second, I don't think they are giving much thought to the significance of the vote (though to be fair, many who cast sustaining votes aren't giving the matter sufficient contemplation, either).  In  D&C 21, we are told:

Quote

4 Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;
5 For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

Why is it that we are commanded to receive prophetic guidance “in all patience and faith?”  Is it because . . . patience and faith are often going to be required?  Because the counsel may be difficult to accept in and of itself?  Because the people through whom such counsel is given are not altogether perfect?  Because the members around us may not follow this counsel or like it?  Because those not of our faith may not follow this counsel or like it or respect it?

Third, I think many members are withholding a sustaining vote for comparatively minor reasons.  The mindset appears to be something along the lines of "Yes, I will sustain the leaders of the Church, but only if each and every decision they individually and collectively make conforms perfectly to my personal expectations and requirements.  Otherwise, I will cast a dissenting vote."  This is a profoundly problematic and unworkable approach.  It does not work.  No group or community leadership would be able to function if the members of it have such a disfunctional way of thinking.

The Lord knew that sustaining the Brethren can be difficult at times.  I think that's why He told us to listen to them "in all patience and faith."  

• "[And Jesus] stretched forth his hand unto the multitude, and cried unto them, saying: Blessed are ye if ye shall give heed unto the words of these twelve whom I have chosen from among you to minister unto you, and to be your servants; and unto them I have given power that they may baptize you with water; and after that ye are baptized with water, behold, I will baptize you with fire and with the Holy Ghost; therefore blessed are ye if ye shall believe in me and be baptized, after that ye have seen me and know that I am."  (3 Nephi 12:1)
• "The elders are to receive their licenses from other elders, by vote of the church to which they belong, or from the conferences."  (D&C 20:63)
• "And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith.  Amen."  (D&C 26:2)
• "The president of the church, who is also the president of the council, is appointed by revelation, and acknowledged in his administration by the voice of the church."  (D&C 102:9)
• "Whosoever receiveth my word receiveth me, and whosoever receiveth me, receiveth those, the First Presidency, whom I have sent, whom I have made counselors for my name’s sake unto you."  (D&C 112:20)
• "And a commandment I give unto you, that you should fill all these offices and approve of those names which I have mentioned, or else disapprove of them at my general conference."  (D&C 124:144)

Matters of Church governance and administration are tough.  We have ways by which we can express disagreement with the leaders of the Church (see, for example, this excellent 1987 article written by Elder Oaks, in which he provides detailed, thoughtful, and scriptural ways by which disagreements can be handled).

For a person of faith, casting a vote is, or should be, a very big deal.  Casting a dissenting vote is strong medicine.  It denotes a substantial departure from what the Lord expects of the body of the Church.  The departure is attributable either by the individual casting it, or else the person(s) against whom it is cast.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 19, 2018 by smac97

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, there is.  Entry to the temple is a privilege, not an inherent right of membership in the Church.

Your statement here doesn't make sense to me.

Okay.

That doesn't work.  Your scenario here is not the same as you choosing to not adhere to the requirements for entry into the temple.

Histrionics.

You speak of entry to the temple as a presumptive right or entitlement.  That is not correct.

You speak as if entry to the temple has no conditions for entry.  That is not correct.

But in a sense, I think you may be correct.  Not being able to go to the temple is a form of discipline/punishment.  Being deprived of those blessings is an adverse consequence.  But since I know ahead of time what disqualifies me for temple attendance, I cannot in good faith claim surprise or dismay when I - through my own conduct - lose this privilege.

I admit that I don't really understand the overweening sense of entitlement I see in some members of the Church.  I'm thinking here of members who like to publicize their disrespect and contempt for the leaders of the Church, but then feign surprise and confusion when the natural and foreseeable consequences of that behavior comes around.  Many of these folks like to present themselves and their disagreement with the leadership of the Church as high-minded, I-insist-on-acting-according-to-my-principles sort of stuff.  But then they turn around and express surprise and dismay at the idea of actually having to face the consequences of that behavior.  I'm reminded of this story:

"Civil disobedience"-style theatrics do not impress me.  It all just comes across as virtue signalling to me.  Why?  Because acting "on principle" sounds just nifty in the abstract, but the protestations and hissy fits from people like Sam Young at having to face the natural and utterly foreseeable consequences of their behavior undermines the whole thing.

The conditions for entry to the temple are well-known.  I admire people who, on principle, forego a temple recommend because they cannot honestly answer that sustain the general authorities or local authorities of the Church.

I am decidedly less impressed with people who, despite knowing ahead of time that sustaining the leadership of the Church is a precondition to entering the temple, nevertheless express surprise and dismay at losing a temple recommend.  To me, it exposes the pretense of their behavior.  

To paraphrase the judge in the above story: "Well, the way that casting a dissenting vote works is that you believe the TR requirement of sustaining the leaders of the Church to be unjust, and so you are willing to be punished for violating it in order to demonstrate the injustice of the requirement. For this to be a true act of casting a dissenting vote, therefore, you would have to be willing to accept the punishment, and through that willingness to accept the punishment, you demonstrate the injustice of the requirement. So, for instance, Martin Luther King's act of civil disobedience was his willingness to be arrested and go to jail in order to demonstrate the injustice of the laws. So, if this was a true act of casting a dissenting vote on your part, isn't your bishop obliged to follow through with the natural and foreseeable consequences of your dissenting vote?"

FWIW, I think many of the people who are casting dissenting votes are doing themselves a disservice.  First, I think a lot of them are doing this more as a "virtue signalling" device than on principle (as demonstrated by the discourteous shouting in General Conference, rather than addressing the dissenting vote with their bishop or stake president). 

Second, I don't think they are giving much thought to the significance of the vote (though to be fair, many who cast sustaining votes aren't giving the matter sufficient contemplation, either).  In  D&C 21, we are told:

Why is it that we are commanded to receive prophetic guidance “in all patience and faith?”  Is it because . . . patience and faith are often going to be required?  Because the counsel may be difficult to accept in and of itself?  Because the people through whom such counsel is given are not altogether perfect?  Because the members around us may not follow this counsel or like it?  Because those not of our faith may not follow this counsel or like it or respect it?

Third, I think many members are withholding a sustaining vote for comparatively minor reasons.  The mindset appears to be something along the lines of "Yes, I will sustain the leaders of the Church, but only if each and every decision they individually and collectively make conforms perfectly to my personal expectations and requirements.  Otherwise, I will cast a dissenting vote."  This is a profoundly problematic and unworkable approach.  It does not work.  No group or community leadership would be able to function if the members of it have such a disfunctional way of thinking.

The Lord knew that sustaining the Brethren can be difficult at times.  I think that's why He told us to listen to them "in all patience and faith."  

• "[And Jesus] stretched forth his hand unto the multitude, and cried unto them, saying: Blessed are ye if ye shall give heed unto the words of these twelve whom I have chosen from among you to minister unto you, and to be your servants; and unto them I have given power that they may baptize you with water; and after that ye are baptized with water, behold, I will baptize you with fire and with the Holy Ghost; therefore blessed are ye if ye shall believe in me and be baptized, after that ye have seen me and know that I am."  (3 Nephi 12:1)
• "The elders are to receive their licenses from other elders, by vote of the church to which they belong, or from the conferences."  (D&C 20:63)
• "And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith.  Amen."  (D&C 26:2)
• "The president of the church, who is also the president of the council, is appointed by revelation, and acknowledged in his administration by the voice of the church."  (D&C 102:9)
• "Whosoever receiveth my word receiveth me, and whosoever receiveth me, receiveth those, the First Presidency, whom I have sent, whom I have made counselors for my name’s sake unto you."  (D&C 112:20)
• "And a commandment I give unto you, that you should fill all these offices and approve of those names which I have mentioned, or else disapprove of them at my general conference."  (D&C 124:144)

Matters of Church governance and administration are tough.  We have ways by which we can express disagreement with the leaders of the Church (see, for example, this excellent 1987 article written by Elder Oaks, in which he provides detailed, thoughtful, and scriptural ways by which disagreements can be handled).

For a person of faith, casting a vote is, or should be, a very big deal.  Casting a dissenting vote is strong medicine.  It denotes a substantial departure from what the Lord expects of the body of the Church.  The departure is attributable either by the individual casting it, or else the person(s) against whom it is cast.

Thanks,

-Smac

You wrote a lot. But the gist seems to be that there should be no complaints when a consequence of an action is foreseeable because the individual knew what would happen.

Someone (or group) may have the power to dictate terms, and then enforce a negative consequence for failure to live up to the dictated terms, but just because a consequence is foreseeable doesn't mean it is just.

Having said that, yes, the church has the power to determine who is able to participate in the temple and who is not. They can set those terms and enforce consequences but that doesn't mean it will always be just. Stated in an even easier way, Might doesn't always make right.

[Maestrophil]

21 hours ago, rockpond said:

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.

I can understand the frustration and the passion.  But I do wonder if the 'being public' about it is really at the heart of it.  For me Bro. Young was exed as much or more for the tone of his public statement rather than the underlying desire for change.  I have been vocal in the past about my desires to have certain aspects of Church policy be approached differently, both in an in-church setting and on social media, and I never once have been warned or chastised.  Of course, I never implied in any of my statements that I held the leaders of the church in contempt, that people should not joint Church over any issue, or that if my demands were not met, I would raise h#@l and/or leave the Church.  

[rongo]

35 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Currently we've had parents of 4 young women and 3 young men speak to the Bishop about making sure their youth are not interviewed alone.  There are varying strengths of objections, from what I've seen.  Some have put it in writing.  Some are fine if it's a YW leader or YM leader who their youth selects to go in with them.  But others are insisting it's one of them (parents) who are present.  My Bishop has honored all of their requests and has honestly had very positive experiences so far.  I think a lot of that is because of how supportive and positive he has been regarding their feelings and requests.

I do know that other parents have spoken to the Bishop (who have younger children) about their concerns (from hearing about the changes, etc.) and the Bishop has assured them that they will have a say regarding whether or not they want their child or youth interviewed one on one or if they will choose to be involved.

One thing I should add is that we do have some in our ward who have been very vocal about this issue (including the first parents to speak to the Bishop and put it in writing).  I know they have spoken to other parents about what they are doing and I do feel that may be why some others have come in and made the requests.  Also, they know the Bishop is supportive.

Fascinating! I think there might be some "contagiousness" with the intensity, and that it is prone to clumping in pockets of influence. 

We had 65 youth and a primary of 120 in my old ward. We post all First Presidency letters (including the one on allowing chaperones), and announced from the pulpit that this was available. Not a single youth or parent requested it. I think this is more normative than the anecdotal pockets where there are some families that want this. 

In writing, though? Man, oh man! Sometimes I'm grateful for the hand I was dealt.  

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

I can understand the frustration and the passion.  But I do wonder if the 'being public' about it is really at the heart of it.  For me Bro. Young was exed as much or more for the tone of his public statement rather than the underlying desire for change.  I have been vocal in the past about my desires to have certain aspects of Church policy be approached differently, both in an in-church setting and on social media, and I never once have been warned or chastised.  Of course, I never implied in any of my statements that I held the leaders of the church in contempt, that people should not joint Church over any issue, or that if my demands were not met, I would raise h#@l and/or leave the Church.  

I was speaking generally.  I agree with you regarding Young... he went beyond just being public about wanting a policy changed.

The general message I am hearing regarding either disagreement with the Brethren or a policy is that one should not be public with those opinions or you may face some kind of discipline.