Sam Young is Excommunicated

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

What should (and may well) be a bigger concern for church leadership is those who don't resign but have become disaffected over various issues like this.  How many members are no longer believers but stay because of spouse, family, or job concerns.  There is an unknowable percentage of members who sit in the pews, hold callings (even leadership callings), and have recommends in their wallets but no longer have any faith in the truth claims of the church.  I keep coming across more and more of them.

I strongly agree that this is a far worse problem than resignation. I have referred to it before as a drop in intensity, enthusiasm, and commitment. 

There is a conservative counterpart, too. If, say, the Church were to officially condemn the priesthood ban itself, or declare that the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham are non-historical but still inspired in some way, I wouldn't leave the Church. But my enthusiasm and commitment would take a big hit. As a family that has been extremely active and which has given the Church a lot, this would hurt. Multiply that by X number of others, and you get an impact.

Sam Young and his movement affect a segment this same way. I don't think this segment is nearly the sort of "mavens" that people like my family would be if we de-coupled from Church service and engagement. For some (some here, in fact), the Church's policies and practices with interviews, male authority, not condemning the ban, etc. are just as dismaying, and if they haven't left the Church, they are not as enthused or committed. Some of these get whipped up in a frenzy by a single issue and make a snap decision to formally resign.

I wonder if any of these snap decision resignees regret their decision, and wish they wouldn't have reacted so emotionally. 

[lostindc]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You said:

What writings by "Prince and other historians" are you referencing here?  Chapter and verse, please.

And this:

Again, which book are you referencing here?  Which pages pertain to "an idea in regards to contention with the Presidency and the 12 and also the contention from within the membership?"

Thanks,

-Smac

Let's stay with contention within leadership.  Membership contention isn't required, that is readily found, hit the Genesis group if you need a run of that info.  I don't have the Prince book in front me, and won't for a few days.  Of course I could just buy an electronic version, but there's no need, btw below isa link for you to purchase Greg's book and show support.  Luckily, his book isn't needed, I do have source's to support my claim, from The Greg Prince himself and already linked this to you before, but you chose not to read.  The link is below.  In the linked article, pages 148, 149, 150, and on and on, address the idea of contention within leadership.  Here are quotes below (p. 149, 151),

Quote

The events which unfolded over the subsequent weeks pitted two strong-willed leaders, Hugh B. Brown, First Counselor in the First Presi- dency, and Harold B. Lee, Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve, against each other.

Quote

Convinced that the threat of change was both real and imminent, Lee moved to block such an eventuality. In an October conversation with N. Eldon Tanner of the First Presidency, he adamantly stated he "would not consent to any change of policy as respects the Negro problem."27 In the ensuing weeks, he worked with the Quorum of the Twelve to draft a pol- icy statement blocking Brown's initiative by reconfirming the church's ban on ordination of Blacks.28

Here is a quote, about press leaking the change and the discord, 

Quote

The story does not end there. On Christmas Day, 1969, an article written by Lester Kinsolving of the San Francisco Chronicle was published in the Salt Lake Tribune. The article read in part: "The Mormon Church's denial of its priesthood to Negroes of African lineage 'will change in the not too distant future,' according to Hugh B. Brown, one of the highest ranking officials of the Church."  

The day the article was published in the Tribune, Brown telephoned Sterling McMurrin and, McMurrin later said, "told me that he wanted me to know that he [had] signed this [First Presidency] document under great pressure."

 

https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Dialogue_V35N01_157.pdf

 

https://www.amazon.com/David-McKay-Rise-Modern-Mormonism/dp/0874808227

[rockpond]

37 minutes ago, rongo said:

There is a conservative counterpart, too. If, say, the Church were to officially condemn the priesthood ban itself, or declare that the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham are non-historical but still inspired in some way, I wouldn't leave the Church. But my enthusiasm and commitment would take a big hit. As a family that has been extremely active and which has given the Church a lot, this would hurt. Multiply that by X number of others, and you get an impact. 

Yes... the Brethren are definitely stuck between a rock and a hard place on certain issues.  No easy answers.  I think the inoculation is going to help but won't fully solve the challenges that lay before us.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I strongly agree that this is a far worse problem than resignation. I have referred to it before as a drop in intensity, enthusiasm, and commitment. 

There is a conservative counterpart, too. If, say, the Church were to officially condemn the priesthood ban itself, or declare that the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham are non-historical but still inspired in some way, I wouldn't leave the Church. But my enthusiasm and commitment would take a big hit. As a family that has been extremely active and which has given the Church a lot, this would hurt. Multiply that by X number of others, and you get an impact.

Sam Young and his movement affect a segment this same way. I don't think this segment is nearly the sort of "mavens" that people like my family would be if we de-coupled from Church service and engagement. For some (some here, in fact), the Church's policies and practices with interviews, male authority, not condemning the ban, etc. are just as dismaying, and if they haven't left the Church, they are not as enthused or committed. Some of these get whipped up in a frenzy by a single issue and make a snap decision to formally resign.

I wonder if any of these snap decision resignees regret their decision, and wish they wouldn't have reacted so emotionally. 

I really like your thoughts here and mostly agree. So what I'm about to say isn't intended to be rude.

But you may not be the maven you think you are. This isn't a persona jab at you because I suspect you are well-liked and respected in the church community. I once would have considered myself a maven but I have come to the conclusion that once someone "de-couples" they lose all respect of those they would have influenced in the church. It was a hard pill for me to swallow to realize that there was no loyalty or even benefit of the doubt afforded me, even though I still attend, simply because I took some less orthodox positions. Of course my experience wouldn't necessarily be yours, but I mention it because I once overestimated my stature and the respect and friendship of ward members I served for so long. And it seemed to disappear over night.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I really like your thoughts here and mostly agree. So what I'm about to say isn't intended to be rude.

But you may not be the maven you think you are. This isn't a persona jab at you because I suspect you are well-liked and respected in the church community. I once would have considered myself a maven but I have come to the conclusion that once someone "de-couples" they lose all respect of those they would have influenced in the church. It was a hard pill for me to swallow to realize that there was no loyalty or even benefit of the doubt afforded me, even though I still attend, simply because I took some less orthodox positions. Of course my experience wouldn't necessarily be yours, but I mention it because I once overestimated my stature and the respect and friendship of ward members I served for so long. And it seemed to disappear over night.

Those of us who spend time in certain Facebook groups are aware that many of the disaffected were just such “mavens”.  People who served for decades in ward council positions and stake callings.  

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

There is an unknowable percentage of members who ... have recommends in their wallets but no longer have any faith in the truth claims of the church.

I personally can't reconcile the portion before the 'but' with the portion following the 'but'.

[rockpond]

29 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I personally can't reconcile the portion before the 'but' with the portion following the 'but'.

Why not?

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Why not?

Based on the questions I respond to in a temple recommend interview -- and specifically numbers 3, 4 and 9 -- the recommend in my wallet is a physical assertion of my 'faith in the truth claims of the church'.

But you and I've been 'round this particular corner before, I recollect ...

[Calm]

When I moved to Canada, I didn't keep my US driver's license in my wallet (once I got my Canadian one).  It served no purpose for me.

Edited September 19, 2018 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I don't think the ward level is a good gauge.  In my 18 years here in Colorado, I've never been in a ward in which new homes weren't being constructed.  I've never had my ward boundaries stay the same for more than 4-5 years.  I think we'd need to look at larger scale numbers.

While I believe that the resignations that accompany these activism events are worth noting, the numbers we're seeing are not significant.  For example, we've tossed around the idea that several wards worth of members have resigned in the wake of Sam Young's excommunication.  In a church where we have averaged 267 new wards per year (over the last decade), losing 3-4 wards barely registers in the noise.

What should (and may well) be a bigger concern for church leadership is those who don't resign but have become disaffected over various issues like this.  How many members are no longer believers but stay because of spouse, family, or job concerns.  There is an unknowable percentage of members who sit in the pews, hold callings (even leadership callings), and have recommends in their wallets but no longer have any faith in the truth claims of the church.  I keep coming across more and more of them.

Doesn’t personal integrity count? The time has arrived when members will have to decide whether or not they stand with the First Presidency. This time has been prophesied. Some leaders and apologists have been accused of “Lying for the Lord.” This appears to be the same concept.

Edited September 19, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Doesn’t personal integrity count? The time has arrived when members will have to decide whether or not they stand with the First Presidency. This time has been prophesied. 

We should stand with the Lord.  (And, yes, personal integrity should count.)

Edited September 19, 2018 by rockpond

[Storm Rider]

7 hours ago, rockpond said:

You took my serious point, reduced it to an absurdity (and not at all what I said nor implied) and then complained that "topics descend into absurdities".

But your response to my question sure did seem like common sense was absent from the conversation. It is obvious, as in glaringly obvious, that to obtain a temple recommend that a member is able to respond to each question properly. If there is an issue on any question then the leader is at liberty to try and understand the problem and determine if the individual is worthy to enter the temple or not.  The questions exist for a reason and serve a purpose. 

I guess what you are stating is the MPB don't direct a leader in every stitch and tittle in this regard - i.e. they actually did not think you needed to be told, "Leader, a member must answer these questions properly."  

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

We should stand with the Lord.  (And, yes, personal integrity should count.)

I don’t personally believe it’s possible to be against the first presidency and stand with the Lord at the same time. 

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don’t personally believe it’s possible to be against the first presidency and stand with the Lord at the same time. 

I believe that one can disagree with the first presidency regarding certain issues or policies and still sustain them.  Do you disagree?

Also, disagreeing does not mean one is "against" them, IMO.

[rockpond]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don’t personally believe it’s possible to be against the first presidency and stand with the Lord at the same time. 

To never disagree with the FP seems to imply an infallibility that I don’t believe in. 

[rockpond]

24 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

But your response to my question sure did seem like common sense was absent from the conversation. It is obvious, as in glaringly obvious, that to obtain a temple recommend that a member is able to respond to each question properly. If there is an issue on any question then the leader is at liberty to try and understand the problem and determine if the individual is worthy to enter the temple or not.  The questions exist for a reason and serve a purpose. 

I guess what you are stating is the MPB don't direct a leader in every stitch and tittle in this regard - i.e. they actually did not think you needed to be told, "Leader, a member must answer these questions properly."  

MPB?

I believe that the Brethren have not specified how the questions be answered because they want the priesthood leader to let the Spirit guide the decision.  If they wanted specific answers, they could specify that — and yet they didn’t.

As I mentioned in a follow up post, there were at least two times when I served as a bishop’s counselor in which a member did not answer how you might have expected but I still felt impressed to sign the recommend. 

[Maestrophil]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

To never disagree with the FP seems to imply an infallibility that I don’t believe in. 

Bluebell said 'be against' which is not the same as disagreeing.

[rockpond]

35 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

Bluebell said 'be against' which is not the same as disagreeing.

My original post didn’t say “be against”.  I was trying to bring the goal posts back.  

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I don’t personally believe it’s possible to be against the first presidency and stand with the Lord at the same time. 

Why??  They are just men.  You are able ..according to mormon doctrine to receive your own personal revelation that gives you a core and a moral compass that belongs to you.  What that is..is your integrity and it is everything.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

We should stand with the Lord.  (And, yes, personal integrity should count.)

If personal integrity counts, how does one justify lying to accept a calling or a get a temple recommend?

IFAIAC, taking a stand with the First Presidency is taking a stand with the Lord inasmuch as they are the ones designated to represent him with authority on the earth.

Edited September 20, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Meerkat]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I once overestimated my stature and the respect and friendship of ward members I served for so long. And it seemed to disappear over night.

Is there any chance your old friends felt disrespected by your new stance? I recall an old quotation from somewhere "Sometimes a person can be mistaken for being mad when they are only sad." No offense intended, HJW.  When two family members left the Church, we tried to express our love for them.  But every extension was met with incredulousness, ridicule and what seemed to be intentional rudeness resulting in many tears shed.  They would say respect and friendship disappeared overnight from our side.  That would not be accurate.  Sadness, yes.  New boundaries to protect tender feelings, yes.  Continued possible misunderstandings on both sides? Yes.  Shall we blame each other? Or shall we pray for peace? It's frustrating to want to support them in whatever direction they want to pursue while being criticized for the direction we want to go with our lives.  What is the solution?

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I believe that one can disagree with the first presidency regarding certain issues or policies and still sustain them.  Do you disagree?

Also, disagreeing does not mean one is "against" them, IMO.

Depends on where the disagreement leads. In the present case, it has led to some unfortunate consequences.

Edited September 20, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Hamba Tuhan]

34 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

It's frustrating to want to support them in whatever direction they want to pursue while being criticized for the direction we want to go with our lives.  What is the solution?

Yep. Back when I was still a PhD student, a member of our ward decided to leave the Church over the issue of gay marriage. In doing so, he vocally told everyone to back off and let him go. So we did. Months later, he stopped by my place and started to complain vehemently about what hypocritical fake friends we all were because no one had reached out to him. I reminded him that he had told us that that's what he wanted. I pointed out that we were just genuinely respecting his agency. But he wouldn't be satisfied.

I'm 100% confident that if we'd kept reaching out to him against his wishes, he would have been complaining on some internet forum somewhere that we wouldn't respect his boundaries. In some cases, one just can't win.

[rockpond]

38 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

If personal integrity counts, how does one justify lying to accept a calling or a get a temple recommend?

IFAIAC, taking a stand with the First Presidency is taking a stand with the Lord inasmuch as they are the ones designated to represent him with authority on the earth.

I don’t justify lying to accept a calling or get a recommend.  

The Prophet is designated to be the Lord’s spokesman.  And we’re all callled to be His disciples.  But there’s only one perfect person.

ps. I tried searching several times and could not figure out what IFAIAC sounds for. 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

I believe that one can disagree with the first presidency regarding certain issues or policies and still sustain them.  Do you disagree?

Also, disagreeing does not mean one is "against" them, IMO.

I do agree that we can disagree with them, and that disagreeing is not being against. But I don’t believe we can oppose them and not be against them.