Sam Young is Excommunicated

[ksfisher]

18 minutes ago, rongo said:

I put it in quotes to designate "for lack of a better term." I was referring to the concept of "social contagion," which doesn't have connotations one way or another. Like with suicide contagion, or social memes (the technical term, not pictures of Willy Wonka with captions)   I think it's beyond doubt that the "clumping" (again, for lack of a better term, but I think you know what I mean) of incidence of people insisting on or even availing themselves of chaperoning, can be traced back to (neutral) social media "contagion." 

Another way of looking at it is Malcolm Gladwell's concept of "stickiness" in "Tipping Point" (which has great applicability in this discussion). He looks at why some social phenomena "take off," and others don't. It's a fascinating sociological phenomenon to look at. For chaperoned interviews to "tip" in the Church would require factors and key people ("mavens") to align and push things to critical mass. 

If this happens, then the Brethren will yield to the internal social pressure, as they have before. But it is not certain that things will develop that way, and obviously I hope that they don't. I think that supporters see the enthusiasm among their "fellow travelers" (lack of a better term, again) as indicating snowballing momentum within the Church.

I think Sam Young's movement will follow other "can't miss" movements, like Ordain Women. Excommunications are very effective at taking wind out of those sails. 

I think that the Lord is very patient with His children.  He gives us chance after chance to choose to follow Him.  I also believes that sometimes He allows things that are really not in our best interest, take the loss of the 116 pages for example. 

[rongo]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

I think that the Lord is very patient with His children.  He gives us chance after chance to choose to follow Him.  I also believes that sometimes He allows things that are really not in our best interest, take the loss of the 116 pages for example. 

I believe this as well. Sometimes, I think this means we have policies and practices that God allows to happen, but are not really in our best interest. 

This is what I think happens when I think the Church "caves" to pressure on an issue . . .  

[HappyJackWagon]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yep.  The local leaders are given a lot of discretion, and often endeavor to facilitate a struggling person's ability to retain a TR.  Worthiness issues are, I think, a different consideration from concerns/doubts about matters of faith and reasoning (such as are found in the first four questions of the TR).

Yes.  

"If the applicant has enough anxiety about the propriety of the conduct to ask about it, the best course would be to discontinue it."  This is probably a reference to matters involving sexuality.  To its credit, the Church has backed away from trying to establish "bright line rules" about such things, and instead offers the foregoing wise counsel.

And yet if the Church were to "step in" and declare that such-and-such a sexual practice is inappropriate, we'd be hearing complaints about the Church being nosy and perverted.

Holy cow.  Can the Church ever do anything right in the eyes of its critics?  Apparently not.  We darned if we do.  Darned if we don't.  Darned no matter what we do.

Such is the bitter fruit of endless faultfinding.

-Smac

You don't see a problem with the approach that if you have a question about something, it's probably wrong, so don't do it? There is a very reasonable alternative to this kind of counsel. "Ask God and decide for yourself what is and what is not appropriate". Declining to answer a question, yet also stating the equivalent of "because you asked the question you already know the answer is X", is classic sidestepping responsibility for giving a thoughtless answer. It totally rejects the concept of a moral dilemma.

Edited September 19, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[lostindc]

25 minutes ago, rongo said:

I put it in quotes to designate "for lack of a better term." I was referring to the concept of "social contagion," which doesn't have connotations one way or another. Like with suicide contagion, or social memes (the technical term, not pictures of Willy Wonka with captions)   I think it's beyond doubt that the "clumping" (again, for lack of a better term, but I think you know what I mean) of incidence of people insisting on or even availing themselves of chaperoning, can be traced back to (neutral) social media "contagion." 

Another way of looking at it is Malcolm Gladwell's concept of "stickiness" in "Tipping Point" (which has great applicability in this discussion). He looks at why some social phenomena "take off," and others don't. It's a fascinating sociological phenomenon to look at. For chaperoned interviews to "tip" in the Church would require factors and key people ("mavens") to align and push things to critical mass. 

If this happens, then the Brethren will yield to the internal social pressure, as they have before. But it is not certain that things will develop that way, and obviously I hope that they don't. I think that supporters see the enthusiasm among their "fellow travelers" (lack of a better term, again) as indicating snowballing momentum within the Church.

I think Sam Young's movement will follow other "can't miss" movements, like Ordain Women. Excommunications are very effective at taking wind out of those sails. 

These "can't miss" movements haven't gone anywhere.  Based on information from Church employees, people are leaving the Church in higher numbers than previous times.  Sam Young's movement has potentially inspired around 4-5 wards of members to resign, thus far.  I realize membership numbers in the Church are extremely flexible, meaning, we really have no idea how many of the members even identify as Mormon.  I've read around 4-5 million of the counted members are considered active.  We do know that these "can't miss" movements like "blacks and the priesthood" have worked.

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

 

This is what I think happens when I think the Church "caves" to pressure on an issue . . .  

I don't know that I would put it this way.  Did God "cave to pressure" when He allowed Joseph Smith to give the 116 pages to Martin Harris?  I don't think so.  I think He allowed it to happen so Joseph could learn that he really did need to listen to the Lord.

Same might be true with some of the things that are happening today.  If members of the church are clamoring for changes that are not in line with the will of the Lord, I think that He might instruct the brethren to make the changes for a couple reasons.  First, so that those who are agitating for change might have a chance to repent.  And second, so that we, as members of the church, might one day learn the same lesson that Joseph Smith learned when he lost the 116 pages.

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, rongo said:

I believe this as well. Sometimes, I think this means we have policies and practices that God allows to happen, but are not really in our best interest. 

Which is what many good, righteous members believe regarding the practice of continuing one on one interviews.  I personally know of many (and some who are in ward and stake leadership positions) who feel this way.

Edited September 19, 2018 by ALarson

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You don't see a problem with the approach that if you have a question about something, it's probably wrong, so don't do it?

I don't think your characterization ("if you have a question about something") is apt.  Again: "If the applicant has enough anxiety about the propriety of the conduct to ask about it, the best course would be to discontinue it." 

Again, this is probably a reference to matters involving sexuality.  So as to specific sexual behaviors within marriage, between a husband and wife, no, I don't see a problem with this counsel.  It's a good default provision.

It may well be possible that the couple has some fundamental defect in their thinking about their sex life.  If that is the case, I think professional counseling is preferable to a bishop rendering a personal opinion.

I just don't think bishops should be involved in addressing most situations pertaining to that particulars of sexual behavior between a married couple that are causing "anxiety" based on a potential lack of "propriety."

Quote

There is a very reasonable alternative to this kind of counsel. "Ask God and decide for yourself what is and what is not appropriate".

That seems complementary, not alternative.

Quote

Declining to answer a question, yet also stating the equivalent of "because you asked the question you already know the answer", is classic sidestepping.

Telling the couple to "ask God and decide for yourself" can also be characterized as "sidestepping."

I don't think bishops should generally be in the business of getting into nitty-gritty details about the "propriety" of sexual behaviors between a husband and wife.  If the couple is "anxious" about the "propriety" of a given behavior, I think very often the best course of action would be to stop the behavior that is causing the anxiety.  There are, presumably, plenty of other behaviors that do not cause "anxiety" about their "propriety."  And if there aren't, then the couple clearly needs professional counseling.

Moreover, I think the Church's general counsel is wise to the extent that one spouse may feel "anxious" about a given behavior, but also feel obligated/pressured to do it by the other spouse.  There are plenty of ways for a couple to enjoy the intimate aspect of their relationship that does not require one or the other to sublimate feelings of "anxiety" over concerns about "propriety."  And if such concerns are extensive, then professional counseling, not the bishop, is probably a better way to go.

Either way, however, the Church's general counsel is good.

Quote

It totally rejects the concept of a moral dilemma.

I don't see it that way. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 19, 2018 by smac97

[rongo]

7 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I don't know that I would put it this way.  Did God "cave to pressure" when He allowed Joseph Smith to give the 116 pages to Martin Harris?  I don't think so.  I think He allowed it to happen so Joseph could learn that he really did need to listen to the Lord.

Same might be true with some of the things that are happening today.  If members of the church are clamoring for changes that are not in line with the will of the Lord, I think that He might instruct the brethren to make the changes for a couple reasons.  First, so that those who are agitating for change might have a chance to repent.  And second, so that we, as members of the church, might one day learn the same lesson that Joseph Smith learned when he lost the 116 pages.

I agree with this. Like with the 116 pages, sometimes God lets leaders/the Church learn from experience by following their will. I see some of the Church's reactionary changes in this vein.

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Which is what many good, righteous members believe regarding the practice of continuing one on one interviews.  I personally know of many (and some who are in ward and stake leadership positions) who feel this way.

I can definitely see how my approach to Church actions I don't like would also be used by those who don't like other Church actions (that I do like).

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, lostindc said:

These "can't miss" movements haven't gone anywhere.  Based on information from Church employees, people are leaving the Church in higher numbers than previous times.  Sam Young's movement has potentially inspired around 4-5 wards of members to resign, thus far.  I realize membership numbers in the Church are extremely flexible, meaning, we really have no idea how many of the members even identify as Mormon.  I've read around 4-5 million of the counted members are considered active.  We do know that these "can't miss" movements like "blacks and the priesthood" have worked.

I think you may have a point.  What we are seeing in the Church in recent years is, I think, a manifestation of attitudes and behaviors we have been seeing in broader society.  These attitudes are not very healthy or good.  Consider these remarks by Jordan Peterson:

Quote

Even more problematic is the insistence logically stemming from this presumption of social corruption that all individual problems, no matter how rare, must be solved by cultural restructuring, no matter how radical. Our society faces the increasing call to deconstruct its stabilizing traditions to include smaller and smaller numbers of people who do not or will not fit into the categories upon which even our perceptions are based. This is not a good thing. Each person’s private trouble cannot be solved by a social revolution, because revolutions are destabilizing and dangerous.

Sam Young's excommunication stems from his personal views, his "individual problems."  He nevertheless wants to project these problems by demanding "cultural restructuring" of the Church, "no matter how radical" that restructuring is.  

And Peterson has a point.  Society restructing based on one individual's problems is not a healthy or good thing.

That Sam Young has been effective in fomenting discord and resentments and disaffections from the Church is quite a separate issue from the morality of what he is doing, and whether his basic point has merit.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

29 minutes ago, lostindc said:

 I've read around 4-5 million of the counted members are considered active.  

And it is precisely these 4-5 million active members who really matter when it comes to resignations. When most resignations are people who are not active in any way, anyway, their leaving doesn't have much of an impact (if any). If there begins to be a groundswell of active members leaving (a groundswell would be more than the 4-5 wards-worth supporters claim). And remember: these would have to be *active* members to move the needle.

We do know that these "can't miss" movements like "blacks and the priesthood" have worked.

The internal support for ending the priesthood ban is not comparable to the active agitation of the last five years that has led to excommunications. Nor were Stanford, San Jose St., etc. protests and boycotting or the violent protests a factor, either (these happened in the late 1960s). Most people are probably aware that the Sao Paolo temple was the biggest factor, arguably the only real factor, excluding actual revelation. 

I really don't think the "movement" to end the ban is comparable to things like Ordain Women, Protect LDS Children, etc. 

[lostindc]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

And it is precisely these 4-5 million active members who really matter when it comes to resignations. When most resignations are people who are not active in any way, anyway, their leaving doesn't have much of an impact (if any). If there begins to be a groundswell of active members leaving (a groundswell would be more than the 4-5 wards-worth supporters claim). And remember: these would have to be *active* members to move the needle.

 

 

The internal support for ending the priesthood ban is not comparable to the active agitation of the last five years that has led to excommunications. Nor were Stanford, San Jose St., etc. protests and boycotting or the violent protests a factor, either (these happened in the late 1960s). Most people are probably aware that the Sao Paolo temple was the biggest factor, arguably the only real factor, excluding actual revelation. 

I really don't think the "movement" to end the ban is comparable to things like Ordain Women, Protect LDS Children, etc. 

No, the priesthood ban is exactly comparable to active agitation.  I am guessing you missed the period of activism for blacks receiving the priesthood, it was pretty big public spectacle.  I believe Gregory Prince and other historians have provided a look at what it was like during this time.  So you're wrong.

Also, the people resigning from the Church tended to be very active members at one point.  Stats from one company that handles resignations, link below, display the vast majority of those resigning are long time members.  Approximately, 15% of the resignations are submitted from currently active members.  This is surprising because one likely assumes a lengthy period of inactivity before resignation.

 

https://quitmormon.com/stats

[Maestrophil]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

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.

 

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

I disagree with some of what Sam Young did (especially towards the end with the hunger strike.).  However, he did get the attention of the leaders and I do believe his cause is a good one (even if I disagree with some of how he went about getting some changes made).

But, serious questions....

What is a member to do who wants to speak out and ask for changes on an issue that they feel strongly about?  What if they feel there needs to be a new policy where all child/youth interviews are two deep, so that all members know of this change and all leaders are uniform on this too?

Members are told not to bother the brethren in SLC with letters or requests, and yet, the local leaders have no power to make any changes.  So who would you speak to about your concerns?

I guess that depends on how public and what your tone is.  I have a hard time believing, based on some of my experiences, that a sincere appeal to local leaders, an appeal in writing to the brethren (I have never been told not to contact them, and have received personal responses to some of my inquiries) - perhaps even accompanied by a petition signed by ward members worded in a faithful and humble tone, would be met with silence or reproach.  If you couple that with insisting that your way is the absolute only way and/or that change needs to happen NOW - then you probably have crossed the line. 

I would wager that the majority of members who are resigning their membership over this have, for the most part, never even spoken to a local leader about this or taken any action at all above getting bothered enough to resign.

BTW - my bishopric has always asked me if I want to be in the room with my 14 year old daughter during interviews, and my daughter says "NO WAY!"  :-).  And I trust the leaders we have implicitly.

Edited September 19, 2018 by Maestrophil
grammar

[ksfisher]

Just now, lostindc said:

I am guessing you missed the period of activism for blacks receiving the priesthood, it was pretty big public spectacle.

It would be nice to understand what you are referring to by this.  I'm not aware of anything that could be described as a "pretty big public spectacle" surrounding blacks receiving the priesthood. 

CFR please.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

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.

Spoken by someone who apparently views a temple recommend as an entitlement rather than a privilege. 

[lostindc]

16 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

It would be nice to understand what you are referring to by this.  I'm not aware of anything that could be described as a "pretty big public spectacle" surrounding blacks receiving the priesthood. 

CFR please.

A quick google search will show you a whole bunch of protests prior to the change of the doctrine.  I can't imagine how this would be difficult to locate.  If I must, because you don't want to google, I can provide info for you later tonight.

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, lostindc said:

No, the priesthood ban is exactly comparable to active agitation.  I am guessing you missed the period of activism for blacks receiving the priesthood, it was pretty big public spectacle.  I believe Gregory Prince and other historians have provided a look at what it was like during this time.  So you're wrong.

 

 

https://quitmormon.com/stats

 

18 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

It would be nice to understand what you are referring to by this.  I'm not aware of anything that could be described as a "pretty big public spectacle" surrounding blacks receiving the priesthood. 

CFR please.

ksfisher is right. I lived through that period. Except for some annoying publicity antics by Bryon Marchant and perhaps a few others, there was scarcely any “public spectacle” of internal pressure regarding the blacks and the priesthood issue. While the vast majority of Church members were delighted when the 1978 revelation was received, it took us by surprise. 

Edited September 19, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, lostindc said:

A quick google search will show you a whole bunch of protests prior to the change of the doctrine.  I can't imagine how this would be difficult to locate.  If I must, because you don't want to google, I can provide info for you later tonight.

If it’s so easy to locate, you ought to be able to provide evidence of this “public spectacle” in, say, the five years leading up to the 1978 revelation. 

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, lostindc said:

A quick google search will show you a whole bunch of protests prior to the change of the doctrine.  I can't imagine how this would be difficult to locate.  If I must, because you don't want to google, I can provide info for you later tonight.

You're the one claiming the "pretty big public spectacle."  My willingness or unwillingness to google is not at issue.

[ALarson]

34 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

It would be nice to understand what you are referring to by this.  I'm not aware of anything that could be described as a "pretty big public spectacle" surrounding blacks receiving the priesthood. 

CFR please.

I've read some about the protests.  Here is some info (I know it's not my CFR...)...in the first blue section:

https://mormonheretic.org/2011/07/10/events-leading-up-to-the-1978-revelation/

Quote

 

Douglas A. Wallace, a Mormon High Priest and Vancouver, Washington, attorney was one such individual.  In April 1976, Wallace, acting on his own, ordained a black man, Larry Lester, to the Mormon priesthood.  While Wallace conceded that he was “stepping outside the bounds of the church” in his action, he said that he hoped that it would “force the issue” of black priesthood denial before the Mormon General Conference meeting in Salt Lake City the following week.40 At the conference Wallace tried to confront Mormon President Spencer W. Kimball with his complaints.  However, Wallace and his two companions were swiftly ejected from the Tabernacle.41 A few days later, Wallace was excommunicated from the church for “open and deliberate disobedience of the rules and regulations of the church in violation of the outlines of the church.”42 As for the ordination of Larry Lester, it was declared null and void by church officials in Salt Lake City.43 That did not stop Wallace’s actions against the church.   Immediately following his excommunication, Wallace sought a rehearing on his ouster, and in October he tried once more to bring the black issue before Mormon General Conference.  Wallace’s latter action was deferred by a court order prohibiting him from attending Mormon church conferences.  Undaunted, Wallace then filed a counterclaim against the church asking for $200,000 in damages.44 In April 1977, Wallace made a third attempt to appear at the Mormon General Conference in order to protest Mormon antiblack practices. Against, attorneys for the church obtained a temporary restraining order.45 Wallace promised further protests and legal actions against the Mormon church.46

Another militant Mormon dissident who directly confronted the church on the Mormon-black issue was Byron Marchant, a Latter-day Saint Boy Scout leader.  Marchant was the scoutmaster of the Mormon Boy Scout troop that was the focal point of the 1974 NAACP controversy over the eligibility of blacks for leadership positions in Mormon-sponsored troops.  Even though this issue was settled, Marchant continued to express his opposition to the general practice of Mormon priesthood denial.  Marchant did this by casting a dissenting vote against sustaining Spencer W. Kimball as church president during the Mormon General Conference in October 1977.  A few days later Marchant was excommunicated from the church for his conference behavior and open opposition to Mormon racial practices.47 Despite his excommunication, Marchant staged another protest on Temple Square during the Mormon General Conference in April 1978.  Even though Marchant was arrested for trespassing on church property, he filed a civil suit against Spencer W. Kimball and promised to organize and stage a protest march on Temple Square during the next Mormon General Conference in October 1978.48

 

The Larry Lester baptism (by Douglas Wallace) made national news:

https://www.nytimes.com/1976/10/05/archives/morman-who-ordained-black-man-is-barred-from-church-conference.html

Edited September 19, 2018 by ALarson

[lostindc]

18 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

It would be nice to understand what you are referring to by this.  I'm not aware of anything that could be described as a "pretty big public spectacle" surrounding blacks receiving the priesthood. 

CFR please.

Greg Prince's interview is linked below, this is from a Dehlin interview, when Dehlin was active and friendly to the Church.  A pic of activists during a BYU bball game is linked, same with a wiki article that can provide an overall look at that time period.  Talk to folks in the Genesis group, they can share stories of members disfellowshipped and even excommunicated due to activism for blacks and the priesthood, including ordaining black members to the priesthood prior to lifting of the ban.  It was a very tough period, much like now.

https://www.mormonstories.org/podcast/mormon-stories-podcast-004-gregory-prince-david-o-mckay-and-the-blackspriesthood-issue/

https://www.coloradoan.com/media/cinematic/gallery/23309601/1970-csu-students-protest-lds-church/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_Mormonism

 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

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.

 

What about frequency of parental abuse? I’m guessing that happens more requently than abuse by bishops. Doesn’t that call for an outcry for “two-deep” supervision of parental interaction with children if one is going to insist on it with bishops? 

[lostindc]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

ksfisher is right. I lived through that period. Except for some annoying publicity antics by Bryon Marchant and perhaps a few others, there was scarcely any “public spectacle” of internal pressure regarding the blacks and the priesthood issue. While the vast majority of Church members were delighted when the 1978 revelation was received, it took us by surprise. 

Scott, you know that's not true.  We had fans taking to the court to shutdown sporting events against BYU, we had members ordaining black members prior to lift of the ban in a public manner, Byron Marchant and Larry Lester were excommunicated, the coverage was vast for a time period when coverage was limited compared to now.

Disclosure, I wasn't born yet.

[lostindc]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If it’s so easy to locate, you ought to be able to provide evidence of this “public spectacle” in, say, the five years leading up to the 1978 revelation. 

I already did Scott, I provided the Greg Prince interview I was discussing and other links, thanks.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, lostindc said:

Scott, you know that's not true.  We had fans taking to the court to shutdown sporting events against BYU, we had members ordaining black members prior to lift of the ban in a public manner, Byron Marchant and Larry Lester were excommunicated, the coverage was vast for a time period when coverage was limited compared to now.

All true....there were definitely public protests that made national news(see my above post).  Just because many were not aware of them, does not mean they didn't take place .

Edited September 19, 2018 by ALarson

[lostindc]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What about frequency of parental abuse? I’m guessing that happens more requently than abuse by bishops. Doesn’t that call for an outcry for “two-deep” supervision of parental interaction with children if one is going to insist on it with bishops? 

Yes Scott, that abuse calls for outcry too.  I guess since that deserves outcry, then we can just accept what's occurring during worthiness interviews.  Good one.