Sam Young is Excommunicated

[rockpond]

31 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

 

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.

It’s nice when you win at leadership roulette.  Painful when you lose. 

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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/

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

Realizing that what qualifies as a "pretty big public spectacle" is very subjective; my (subjective) judgement wouldn't qualify these as "pretty big."  That they happened is inarguable, but nothing along the lines of what Ordain Women or other groups are doing today.  Perhaps the rise of social media has distorted my idea of what big is.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours 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.

Disclosure, I wasn't born yet.

I can tell you weren’t born yet, because your rendition is obviously ill informed. The protests at BYU sporting events were from outsiders, not “internal activism.” 

The coverage of Marchant et al was what one might expect for the antics of noisy, quirky, publicity-seeking faultfinders, but it was not the “public spectacle” of widespread internal activism you are trying to make it out to be. 

But you appear to have sidestepped my question. What “public spectacle” of internal activism was going on within five years of the priesthood revelation in 1978? My clear recollection is that even the external criticism of the late 1960s had subssided and largely disappeared from public consciousness by then. 

Edited September 20, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Realizing that what qualifies as a "pretty big public spectacle" is very subjective; my (subjective) judgement wouldn't qualify these as "pretty big."  That they happened is inarguable, but nothing along the lines of what Ordain Women or other groups are doing today.  Perhaps the rise of social media has distorted my idea of what big is.

You can argue regarding semantics, but these made national news....so I think that's considered "pretty big".  I think that meets the CFR at least.

I think there was also a police officer who was shot that was possibly given orders to keep an eye on Douglas Wallace (while he was there to protest in SLC), but it's been awhile since I've read about that case.  He ended up dying, iirc.,  I think he was accidentally shot by another police officer who was with him.  I'll try to look that up if you're interested.

Edited September 19, 2018 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

Quisque comodeus est

Omnis autem est habere

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You can argue regarding semantics, but these made national news....so I think that's considered "pretty big".  I think that meets the CFR at least.

Lots of things make national news that it would be overwrought to call a “public spectacle.” 

[HappyJackWagon]

58 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. 

Rongo, I'm surprised and disappointed to hear you say this.

I think you fail to recognize the progression of disaffiliation to resignation for most people. Someone who is a fully-believing member of the church last week isn't all that likely to resign based on this one event/issue. But someone who was an active member/leader last year but has gradually been shifting away from full orthodoxy and orthopraxy will be more likely to resign. Are you suggesting that a resignation only matters if it is sudden as opposed to a progression over time? At the very least, the sentiment is extremely dismissive.

I'll also note that many people who have become disconnected from the church mentally and spiritually still attend church regularly. The church's bar for what is considered "active" is pretty darn low, so are you sure that all "active" people who resign matter? Or should that statement be amended to say that only active, temple recommend holders matter. But what about the people who hold a recommend but rarely (if ever) attend the temple. Would their resignation matter?

Perhaps you're right that resignations of inactive people won't matter much to the institutional church, but remember that the vast majority of those people have many friends and family in the church. I suppose it matters to them and could impact relationships and could even be a contagion that leads other currently active members towards disaffection.

If it's only 4-5 million members who matter, I hope the church starts quoting that number instead of acting puffed up by the growth of the church to 16 million members, 11 million of whom don't matter.

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Lots of things make national news that it would be overwrought to call a “public spectacle.” 

I would say that showing up in General Conference and protesting (confronting the Prophet and being ejected from the Tabernacle) is very much a "public spectacle".  I think those very terms (or something very similar) have been used to describe the recent disruptions caused by those protesting in General Conference.

Edited September 19, 2018 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

38 minutes ago, lostindc said:

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.

Was it you or Gray who complained about argumentum ad absurdim being a “lazy argument”? If it’s such a bad argument, it ought to be easily refutable. Why not hold parents responsible, at least in principle, for “two-deep” supervision of widespread occurrence of abuse is such a compelling rationale for it? We already do that to some extent in joint-custody arrangements. Why not make it universal? 

Edited September 19, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I would say that showing up in General Conference and protesting (confronting the Prophet and being ejected from the Tabernacle) is very much a "public spectacle".  I think those very terms (or something very similar) have been used to describe the recent disruptions caused by those protesting in General Conference.

Anyone can make an *** of himself at a large public gathering. But wasn’t it the contention that there was widespread internal pressure on the order of Ordain Women or such stuff that brought about the 1978 revelation? 

[rongo]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Rongo, I'm surprised and disappointed to hear you say this.

I think you fail to recognize the progression of disaffiliation to resignation for most people. Someone who is a fully-believing member of the church last week isn't all that likely to resign based on this one event/issue. But someone who was an active member/leader last year but has gradually been shifting away from full orthodoxy and orthopraxy will be more likely to resign. Are you suggesting that a resignation only matters if it is sudden as opposed to a progression over time? At the very least, the sentiment is extremely dismissive.

I'll also note that many people who have become disconnected from the church mentally and spiritually still attend church regularly. The church's bar for what is considered "active" is pretty darn low, so are you sure that all "active" people who resign matter? Or should that statement be amended to say that only active, temple recommend holders matter. But what about the people who hold a recommend but rarely (if ever) attend the temple. Would their resignation matter?

Perhaps you're right that resignations of inactive people won't matter much to the institutional church, but remember that the vast majority of those people have many friends and family in the church. I suppose it matters to them and could impact relationships and could even be a contagion that leads other currently active members towards disaffection.

If it's only 4-5 million members who matter, I hope the church starts quoting that number instead of acting puffed up by the growth of the church to 16 million members, 11 million of whom don't matter.

I only meant in a practical sense. If people who are extremely inactive, do not contact, etc. resign, that doesn't really impact the Church from the standpoint of driving change. Most people won't even know they've resigned.  If the resignees are very active, and more important, influential and impactful on others in their wards, this packs much more of a wallop. These would be Gladwell's "mavens" (people whose actions impact others powerfully. Most people's just don't). 

This isn't to say that it isn't a loss to the church, or tragic. 

Furthermore, I don't trust the categories reported by critics. We have no way to confirm them, other than our own anecdotal experience. Critics have a vested interest in inflating both raw numbers and strength of resignees. We don't even know if these reported numbers are made up out of thin air, strictly accurate, or what. 

Edited September 19, 2018 by rongo

[Scott Lloyd]

Posted in error

Edited September 19, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

I only meant in a practical sense. If people who are extremely inactive, do not contact, etc. resign, that doesn't really impact the Church from the standpoint of driving change. Most people won't even know they've resigned.  If the resignees are very active, and more important, influential and impactful on others in their wards, this packs much more of a wallop. These would be Gladwell's "mavens" (people whose actions impact others powerfully. Most people's just don't). 

This isn't to say that it isn't a loss to the church, or tragic. 

Furthermore, I don't trust the categories reported by critics. We have no way to confirm them, other than our own anecdotal experience. Critics have a vested interest in inflating both raw numbers and strength of resignees. We don't even know if these reported numbers are made up out of thin air, strictly accurate, or what. 

Should we accept the church's numbers even though we have no way to confirm them and even though there is reason to believe the membership numbers are likely inflated?

Or maybe the church could either validate the numbers or correct them.

Edited September 19, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[JulieM]

47 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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/

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

I've never read all of that before!  This is interesting:

"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."

One can wonder about the timing of these protests getting louder and more public as it was only 2 months later that the change was announced!  Of course we have no idea all that was going on behind the scenes.

[rockpond]

I believe that the hearts and minds of the members need to be prepared for us to receive revelation (through our prophet) on any matter.  And, I believe that a question or problem needs to arise and serve as a catalyst.  These statements aren't universal but I believe they apply in most situations.

In the case of OD2... perhaps that preparation was spurred by events and teachings from outside the LDS community along with some efforts from members within the church.  The catalyst seems to have been the first temple in Brazil.

Over the past decade, the church has witnessed a lot of activism from within.  Some appropriate and some inappropriate.  I think all of it has tended to raise awareness and, in big and small ways, prepare the hearts and minds of members.

[lostindc]

34 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I can tell you weren’t born yet, because your rendition is obviously ill informed. The protests at BYU sporting events were from outsiders, not “internal activism.” 

The coverage of Marchant et al was what one might expect for the antics of noisy, quirky, publicity-seeking faultfinders, but it was not the “public spectacle” of widespread internal activism you are trying to make it out to be. 

But you appear to have sidestepped my question. What “public spectacle” of internal activism was going on within five years of the priesthood revelation in 1978? My clear recollection is that even the external criticism of the lat 1960s had subssided and largely disappeared from public consciousness by then. 

Greg Prince and the Genesis group disagrees.

[lostindc]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Anyone can make an *** of himself at a large public gathering. But wasn’t it the contention that there was widespread internal pressure on the order of Ordain Women or such stuff that brought about the 1978 revelation? 

Read Prince's book and get an idea in regards to contention with the Presidency and the 12 and also the contention from within the membership.  I will take Greg's research over your words on this message board.  Greg Prince is well respected and produces thoroughly vetted texts.

[JulieM]

Just now, lostindc said:

Read Prince's book and get an idea in regards to contention with the Presidency and the 12 and also the contention from within the membership.  I will take Greg's research over your words on this message board.  Greg Prince is well respected and produces thoroughly vetted texts.

Between that and all that alarson posted, you certainly backed up your claim.  However, I do wonder if the general membership (like Scott) were generally unaware of all the protests because there was no social media (and so on) like today?

 

[Calm]

7 hours 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.

And you dictating this will influence children to do so how?

Quote

Bishops are looking out for the good name of the church and generally don't know how to handle the situation appropriately, IMO

Most of the bishops I have known it wouldn't even occur to them to think of the "good name" of the Church if a child was being abused.

I do believe training could always be improved upon.  

Quote

Children should report to a teacher.

I don't see reporting to a teacher as a magic bullet.

Quote

Three-quarters of Australian primary school teachers indicate that they have suspected a case of CAN at some stage in their careers [16]. However, teachers often fail to report suspected CAN to statutory authorities [17–20]. In a recent Australian survey, only 49% of teachers who had detected a likely case of CAN indicated that they had ever reported their suspicions [16], and in USA an estimated 84% of cases of suspected CAN in schools are not reported [18]. Under-reporting occurs despite teachers' commitment to the prevention of CAN [21] and irrespective of whether teachers are legally mandated to report their suspicions or not [22].

Quote

Educators are mandated by law to report to the police.

And yet estimated 84% of cases go unreported by them.

https://academic.oup.com/her/article/23/6/941/556308

Edited September 19, 2018 by Calm

[LoudmouthMormon]

You know how you get sworn in when you're about to testify in court?  I hate that.  It's obviously a bad thing we shouldn't require.  

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

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.

You think they aren't being taught to report to teachers now?

[lostindc]

5 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

You know how you get sworn in when you're about to testify in court?  I hate that.  It's obviously a bad thing we shouldn't require.  

case closed, worthiness interviews are safe!

[JulieM]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't see reporting to a teacher as a magic bullet.

And yet estimated 84% of cases go unreported by them.

84% are not reported after a child comes to them and says they’re being abused?  Wow.  Where did you read this?  Very sad.

Edited September 19, 2018 by JulieM

[Calm]

I forgot the link, my apologies.

[Calm]

Quote

More-experienced teachers appear to be more likely to report suspected CAN than less-experienced teachers [16, 19, 20] and while two studies found that female teachers were more likely to report CAN than male teachers [33, 34], gender differences were not found in another study [26]. Finally, reporting appears to be influenced by case characteristics. Reporting is more likely to occur when CAN is severe, involves sexual or physical abuse and when the child has disclosed the abuse [14, 27].

It looks like reporting goes up when a child discloses, but that phrasing suggests it doesn't always happen.  Will see if I can find those studies online for more details.

add- on:  didn't find specific details.  Most kids, however, don't report it, so if abuse is to be stopped, it has to be done by adults who are suspicious.  Unfortunately, that doesn't mean it gets investigated given CPS are not funded enough to do so in this country.

Edited September 20, 2018 by Calm