Sam Young is Excommunicated

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't have cable and rarely watch TV news so I tend to think of the website.

I'm only aware of the CNN.com article being published about Young so I assume that is what he was referring to.

Not spun up... just felt that your misdirection should be corrected.

I'd say the misdirection is besetting those who are being led to believe Young was the subject of a report on the CNN TV network when all it was is a piece on a website. I was one of them, I confess I assumed Young was featured on the TV programming; now you tell me otherwise.

Edited September 26, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

We don't ask people if they've murdered someone. Does that mean murder isn't important to the church?

It would IF murder were legal and generally embraced or overlooked by society at large. 

[rockpond]

40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'd say the misdirection is besetting those who are being led to believe Young was the subject of a report on the CNN TV network when all it was is a piece on a website. I was one of them, I confess I assumed Young was featured on the TV programming; now you tell me otherwise.

Young’s Facebook post that was quoted here in this thread (the one that referred to “top tier” and began this discussion) referred specifically to an “article”.  So I am not sure who led you to believe that it was on the cable tv network, but it wasn’t Young. 

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'd say the misdirection is besetting those who are being led to believe Young was the subject of a report on the CNN TV network when all it was is a piece on a website. I was one of them, I confess I assumed Young was featured on the TV programming; now you tell me otherwise.

There was a link provided.  There was no misdirection, imo, since it took minimal effort to see what he was talking about.

[Calm]

Why limiting adults in children's lives might limit positive opportunities:

https://www.joe.org/joe/2010october/tt4.php

https://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/2013-54CaringAdults.pdf

Quote

Developmental research shows that having one or more caring adults in a child’s
life increases the likelihood that they will ourish, and become productive adults themselves.1 In many cases, these caring adults are the child’s parents, but other relatives, neighbors, friends of parents, teachers, coaches, religious leaders, and others can play this role. We used data from the 2011/12 National Survey of Children’s Health to examine the prevalence of these relationships among children in the U.S., ages 6-17, and among di erent subgroups of this population; and the association between having a caring adult and indicators of positive well-being. 

Children and adolescents who have a formal or informal “mentor-like” relationship with someone outside their home are less likely to have externalizing behavior problems (bullying) and internalizing problems (depression).

This group is also more likely to complete tasks they start, remain calm in the face of challenges, show interest in learning new things, volunteer in the community, engage in physical activities, participate in out-of-school time activities, and be engaged in school.

Additionally, those who have a caring adult outside the home are more likely to talk with their parents about “things that really matter.”

These results suggest that mentor-like adults outside the home can be a resourcei in promoting positive well-being for children and adolescents. 

 

Edited September 26, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/418137

Quote

Context.  —The main threats to adolescents' health are the risk behaviors they choose. How their social context shapes their behaviors is poorly understood.

Objective.  —To identify risk and protective factors at the family, school, and individual levels as they relate to 4 domains of adolescent health and morbidity: emotional health, violence, substance use, and sexuality....

Quote

Parent-family connectedness and perceived school connectedness were protective against every health risk behavior measure except history of pregnancy.

Stats show religion connectedness is protective as well.  I can get the data later.

If the greatest danger to kids are their own risk behaviours, having a chance to talk to a caring adult about those behaviours, discussing accountability, and being encouraged to develop self-control could very well lessen those self-inflicted dangers.

Would be a shame if by removing the ability of a bishop to have these types of personal connections instead of protecting youth, it increases risk behaviour and ends up harming more than it protects.

[Calm]

Totally off topic, but relevant to protecting children....keep those family dinners happening...

Quote

Conclusions and Relevance  Cyberbullying relates to mental health and substance use problems in adolescents, even after their involvement in face-to-face bullying is taken into account. Although correlational, these results suggest that family dinners (ie, family contact and communication) are beneficial to adolescent mental health and may help protect adolescents from the harmful consequences of cyberbullying

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/1900477?resultClick=1

[Calm]

Quote

We measure “caring adults” not only by good relationships between parents and their children, but also by the involvement of others in school and through their communities who can guide, assist and mentor young people toward bright futures. What’s more, young people actively want this developmental resource. More than one-half of young people in the 2006 America’s Promise Voices Study(link)  said that they look for advice and help from adults on doing well in school, relationships with friends, jobs and careers, and college. And more than 40 percent of the young people ages 8 through 21 said they want more adults in their lives to whom they can turn for help.

The 2006 National Promises Study reveals a number of troubling gaps in the distribution of this cornerstone Promise: One-third of teens and 20 percent of younger children do not have quality relationships with their parents.  More than 55 percent of adolescents and 40 percent of younger children do not have caring adults in their homes, schools and communities. The 2014 report by MENTOR entitled The Mentoring Effect also showed that 13.5 million young Americans are without formal or even informal mentors in their lives, leaving them short of caring adults in their lives who have the ability to help them through critical moments when they most need guidance and support.

And all indicators point to this assistance being very powerful in the lives of young Americans. In its 2014 study The Mentoring Effect, MENTOR: The National Mentoring Partnership showed that young people with formal and even informal mentors in their lives were far more likely to stay in school, enroll in college, become active in sports, become leaders and generally pursue higher goals than those who do not have mentoring relationships in their lives.

With the right guidance, young Americans are far more likely to make the wise life choices that will keep them on track to reaching the American dream as adults.All children and youth need and deserve support and guidance from caring adults in their families, schools and communities. These include ongoing, secure relationships with guardians, parents and other family members, as well as positive relationships with teachers, mentors, coaches and neighbors.

http://www.americaspromise.org/promise/caring-adults

[california boy]

10 hours ago, YJacket said:

So instead of addressing the content of the verses, you make fun of the entire work.  It's very easy to live whatever lifestyle you like to and make yourself feel good about doing it by simply discarding those things that you dislike b/c the other part of that source talks about things that you deem to be beyond the realm of possibility.  That's what is known as throwing the baby out with the bathwater, also known as rationalization.

If you believe there is a God (and at this point I'm doubtful that you truly believe there is one), I'd would like to know what you believe are the limits of His Power.  I'm curious that if you do have a belief in a Supreme Being, are we created by Him, if so what is our purpose and why would He create us?

Actually I did address your post very directly. Just because something is in the Bible doesn’t mean it came from God.  

You are not the first to claim to know what God said and what He didn’t say. You won’t be the last. 

What is also apparent is that you like to tell others what comes from God and what doesn’t. You find it rewarding to usurp the role of God by becoming the judge of others   You don’t even allow me my own faith in God. How arrogant.  Fortunately there is only one opinion that matters. It is not yours

[Calm]

Quote

and at this point I'm doubtful that you truly believe there is one

Quote

What is also apparent is that you like to tell others what comes from God and what doesn’t. You find it rewarding to usurp the role of God by becoming the judge of others 

I find mindreading attempts a waste of time and distracting, whether I try it myself or run across it in others' posts.  I suspect accuracy is extremely poor given most attempts are based on a few lines of texts, maybe paragraphs even, but lacking all other context of tone, facial expression, and a direct line into someone's brain.

Edited September 26, 2018 by Calm

[YJacket]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Actually I did address your post very directly. Just because something is in the Bible doesn’t mean it came from God.  

You are not the first to claim to know what God said and what He didn’t say. You won’t be the last. 

What is also apparent is that you like to tell others what comes from God and what doesn’t. You find it rewarding to usurp the role of God by becoming the judge of others   You don’t even allow me my own faith in God. How arrogant.  Fortunately there is only one opinion that matters. It is not yours

Excuse me? What is your problem man.  No you did not address my point directly.  I asked you "I'd would like to know what you believe are the limits of His Power.  I'm curious that if you do have a belief in a Supreme Being, are we created by Him, if so what is our purpose and why would He create us?"

I asked that question respectfully and yet you personally attack me.  I don't get it. To the bold, you don't need to get an attitude, I asked you a question and instead of addressing that question you personally attack me-what the heck man?

You certainly have your own right to believe whatever you want to believe-I'm simply pushing to find out what exactly it is that you do believe.  That can be uncomfortable-I understand, but there is no need to get personal.

Do you believe in a Redeemer? Do you believe that Christ died and was risen three days later?  Do you believe that He raised multiple people from the dead? If so, how is literally raising oneself and others less believable than a talking donkey?

If you don't want to answer, that's fine.  You perfectly have the right to believe whatever you want to believe, fairy Godmother, Santa Claus, Roman Gods, your own God, no God, yeah please be my guest.  However, if you are a Christian (which is generally determine in a believe in Christ as a real person who suffered, died, and was risen again), how is that any less fanciful than a talking donkey.  I am genuinely curious.

I don't know why it is that you have a chip on your shoulder about this-I've been discoursing pretty non-emotional about it, direct, and yet you call me arrogant.  What is your problem man?

 

[YJacket]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I find mindreading attempts a waste of time and distracting, whether I try it myself or run across it in others' posts.  I suspect accuracy is extremely poor given most attempts are based on a few lines of texts, maybe paragraphs even, but lacking all other context of tone, facial expression, and a direct line into someone's brain.

Please don't put emphasis on words that I did not put emphasis on-that is mindreading.  Saying that I'm doubtful and then asking a question about my doubts about your belief and giving you an opportunity to clarify my doubt is NOT mindreading.  That's called having a conversation.

If I say I'm doubtful you believe in God-how hard is it to say, "You are incorrect, I do believe in God-here is what I believe about Him"?  

If someone says to you, well I don't really believe that Christ made the blind man see, and I say well I doubt you truly believe Christ is the Savior, please explain to me how you believe he is the Savior. That's not mindreading-that taking ones words drawing a logical conclusion, stating that conclusion and then asking one to clarify that conclusion. 

That's not arrogance, putting words in ones mouth or anything like that.  It's simply having a conversation, where I express my opinion based on your words and you get to clarify my opinion.  No need to get snippy or personal about it.

Edited September 26, 2018 by YJacket

[Calm]

“I asked that question respectfully“

No, you didn’t when you tell him you doubt he truly believes in God instead of taking his word for it. 

[Gray]

8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

It would IF murder were legal and generally embraced or overlooked by society at large. 

Special pleading.

[Gray]

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

You’re criticizing, right now in this post, our church for its beliefs about the importance of chastity. 

Nope, not at all. I'm not a big fan of shaming. But that's a different issue.

 

Quote

But I was asking those questions to illustrate why our church handles chastity differently than a lot of other Christian denominations. We handle it differently because we believe it’s more important than they do. 

That's a self-serving position to take - you should be skeptical of it for that reason.

Edited September 26, 2018 by Gray

[Gray]

17 hours ago, rongo said:

I don't even see it emphasized --- as in specifically taught. When, in a non-Mormon church, is there typically a sermon or a lesson taught emphasizing chastity before/outside of marriage? Fidelity within marriage, yes. That I agree with. We don't have a monopoly on that. 

How many Sundays per month do you attend services at other Christian churches?

 

Quote

 

I would settle for simply teaching that it is a sin that needs to be repented of, and that people shouldn't do it (sex outside of marriage, whether unmarried or already married). I think this is extremely rare nowadays outside of the Church. 

I don't see it as being rare at all.

 

Quote

I'm trying to see where you see social humiliation in the Church. Do you mean confession to the bishop? Membership restrictions? We haven't branded people with scarlet letters for a few years now.

Generally restrictions on temple and sacrament, and of course the non-confidential nature of the confessional.

 

Edit: check this out. There are all kinds of books out there like this for Christians:

 

https://www.amazon.com/Passion-Purity-Learning-Christs-Control/dp/0800758188

 

https://www.sophiainstitute.com/products/item/christian-dating-in-a-godless-world

Edited September 26, 2018 by Gray

[california boy]

28 minutes ago, YJacket said:

Excuse me? What is your problem man.  No you did not address my point directly.  I asked you "I'd would like to know what you believe are the limits of His Power.  I'm curious that if you do have a belief in a Supreme Being, are we created by Him, if so what is our purpose and why would He create us?"

I asked that question respectfully and yet you personally attack me.  I don't get it. To the bold, you don't need to get an attitude, I asked you a question and instead of addressing that question you personally attack me-what the heck man?

You certainly have your own right to believe whatever you want to believe-I'm simply pushing to find out what exactly it is that you do believe.  That can be uncomfortable-I understand, but there is no need to get personal.

Do you believe in a Redeemer? Do you believe that Christ died and was risen three days later?  Do you believe that He raised multiple people from the dead? If so, how is literally raising oneself and others less believable than a talking donkey?

If you don't want to answer, that's fine.  You perfectly have the right to believe whatever you want to believe, fairy Godmother, Santa Claus, Roman Gods, your own God, no God, yeah please be my guest.  However, if you are a Christian (which is generally determine in a believe in Christ as a real person who suffered, died, and was risen again), how is that any less fanciful than a talking donkey.  I am genuinely curious.

I don't know why it is that you have a chip on your shoulder about this-I've been discoursing pretty non-emotional about it, direct, and yet you call me arrogant.  What is your problem man?

 

I don’t have any chip on my shoulder.  But this thread is about the excommunication of Sam Young. You have chosen to derail this thread and make it about the “gays” and what you personally believe God thinks about this subject. I feel like I have already indulged your post more than I should have.

 

Perhaps you should consider opening a thread about the “gays” and their relationship with God.  I will be glad to participate.  I think most people on this board know that I am not shy about expressing my opinion on this subject 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Actually I did address your post very directly. Just because something is in the Bible doesn’t mean it came from God.  

You are not the first to claim to know what God said and what He didn’t say. You won’t be the last. 

What is also apparent is that you like to tell others what comes from God and what doesn’t. You find it rewarding to usurp the role of God by becoming the judge of others   You don’t even allow me my own faith in God. How arrogant.  Fortunately there is only one opinion that matters. It is not yours

So true, pretty sure it's men speaking as men, not Jesus.

[california boy]

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

“I asked that question respectfully“

No, you didn’t when you tell him you doubt he truly believes in God instead of taking his word for it. 

Exactly my point

[YJacket]

 

44 minutes ago, california boy said:

I don’t have any chip on my shoulder.  But this thread is about the excommunication of Sam Young. You have chosen to derail this thread and make it about the “gays” and what you personally believe God thinks about this subject. I feel like I have already indulged your post more than I should have.

 

Perhaps you should consider opening a thread about the “gays” and their relationship with God.  I will be glad to participate.  I think most people on this board know that I am not shy about expressing my opinion on this subject 

Umm, okay . . . you choose to respond to me, you therefore engaged me in conversation. Now you claim you do not want to engage me in conversation in this thread but in another.  I do not believe you truly do want to converse.  You want to say I'm the problem; you could have not responded initially, in this thread if that was your desire-it takes two to tango.  It's that simple.

I see this is going nowhere.  Unfortunately, you have confirmed many of my thoughts about individuals who believe in or practice in homosexuality-which is they don't really want to have a conversation-they'd rather justify themselves. 

I'm not going to get into a contest about whether I did or did not ask something respectfully-I refuse to.  You can take my words however you desire, respectfully not respectfully-that is up to you, I know how I asked it, how I meant it in my heart, what you do with it is up to you.

Thank you sir, I do believe this conversation has run it's course and since it is my feeling that you truly do not want to engage in a conversation (in this or in another thread) and that while I'm open to you demonstrating that you truly do want to converse, unless I see further proof, I bid you good day. I will not respond to you further in this type of conversation.

Edited September 26, 2018 by YJacket

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, YJacket said:

 

Umm, okay . . . you choose to respond to me, you therefore engaged me in conversation.  Now you want to say I'm the problem; you could have not responded.  It's that simple.

I see this is going nowhere.  Unfortunately, you have confirmed many of my thoughts about individuals who believe in or practice in homosexuality-which is they don't really want to have a conversation-they'd rather justify themselves . . .and well I'll just leave it at that.

Thank you sir, I do believe this conversation has run it's course and since it is my feeling that you truly do not want to engage in a conversation.  I'm open to you demonstrating that you truly do not want to converse, but unless I see further proof, I bid you good day-I will not respond to you further in this conversation.

You're new to this board but your rudeness is getting old, fast. Try being a little more respectful and you might last more than 1 month here. Seriously, your freely dispensed judgement is hard to take.

[YJacket]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You're new to this board but your rudeness is getting old, fast. Try being a little more respectful and you might last more than 1 month here. Seriously, your freely dispensed judgement is hard to take.

I don't believe you understand what respect is. I do my best to treat people fairly, honest, I say yes sir, no sir, yes ma'am, no ma'am.  I don't know how I can be more respectful to someone other than calling them in sincerity "sir".

Simply because I state a belief about someone has no bearing on respect or not.  I can believe someone is trying to justify themselves in their sin, while talking to them respectfully.  I refuse to be kowtowed by individuals who believe that b/c I believe that those who believe in homosexuality self-justify themselves, that I am being "disrespectful".  All that amounts to is this: if you don't believe things the same way that HJW or YCB or whoever believe then you are disrespectful.

If I get banned, so be it. God will be the determining of my actions, not some random board that in the end probably means nothing.  It will just demonstrate further to me that an actual conversation with individuals who believe this way is impossible.   I am open to someone discussing with me how they are not self-justifying, I have no problem with that.  But in the end it just leads to conversations like this where the one who doesn't believe like the crowd is put upon as being disrespectful, evil, bigoted, hateful, etc, etc. etc.

Again this conversation is pointless as this will lead to no-where, you have your belief, I have mine.  We can not engage in a conversation without you or another who believes like you getting "offended", feeling disrespected or another else.  Which means you will continue to believe in your echo-chamber.  That is perfectly fine.  Good day, sir.

YJacket has been removed from the thread.

[california boy]

45 minutes ago, YJacket said:

 

Umm, okay . . . you choose to respond to me, you therefore engaged me in conversation. Now you claim you do not want to engage me in conversation in this thread but in another.  I do not believe you truly do want to converse.  You want to say I'm the problem; you could have not responded initially, in this thread if that was your desire-it takes two to tango.  It's that simple.

I see this is going nowhere.  Unfortunately, you have confirmed many of my thoughts about individuals who believe in or practice in homosexuality-which is they don't really want to have a conversation-they'd rather justify themselves. 

I'm not going to get into a contest about whether I did or did not ask something respectfully-I refuse to.  You can take my words however you desire, respectfully not respectfully-that is up to you, I know how I asked it, how I meant it in my heart, what you do with it is up to you.

Thank you sir, I do believe this conversation has run it's course and since it is my feeling that you truly do not want to engage in a conversation (in this or in another thread) and that while I'm open to you demonstrating that you truly do want to converse, unless I see further proof, I bid you good day. I will not respond to you further in this type of conversation.

You don’t think you are derailing this thread about Sam Young?

[HappyJackWagon]

29 minutes ago, YJacket said:

I don't believe you understand what respect is. I do my best to treat people fairly, honest, I say yes sir, no sir, yes ma'am, no ma'am.  I don't know how I can be more respectful to someone other than calling them in sincerity "sir".

Simply because I state a belief about someone has no bearing on respect or not.  I can believe someone is trying to justify themselves in their sin, while talking to them respectfully.  I refuse to be kowtowed by individuals who believe that b/c I believe that those who believe in homosexuality self-justify themselves, that I am being "disrespectful".  All that amounts to is this: if you don't believe things the same way that HJW or YCB or whoever believe then you are disrespectful.

If I get banned, so be it. God will be the determining of my actions, not some random board that in the end probably means nothing.  It will just demonstrate further to me that an actual conversation with individuals who believe this way is impossible.   I am open to someone discussing with me how they are not self-justifying, I have no problem with that.  But in the end it just leads to conversations like this where the one who doesn't believe like the crowd is put upon as being disrespectful, evil, bigoted, hateful, etc, etc. etc.

Again this conversation is pointless as this will lead to no-where, you have your belief, I have mine.  We can not engage in a conversation without you or another who believes like you getting "offended", feeling disrespected or another else.  Which means you will continue to believe in your echo-chamber.  That is perfectly fine.  Good day, sir.

And you're claiming I don't understand what respect is  ? Using a specific word doesn't indicate respect. When "sir" and "ma'am" are a façade on your disdain, it doesn't hold up. Respect is much more than

You seem to think your rudeness is god ordained and that it's a badge of honor. You probably think you are being persecuted for your beliefs. But that's not correct. You're simply being called out for your rudeness and open judgement of others. As a reminder, you recently said to CB...

Quote

you have confirmed many of my thoughts about individuals who believe in or practice in homosexuality-which is they don't really want to have a conversation-they'd rather justify themselves . . .and well I'll just leave it at that.

Not only are you generalizing one person's response to a large group of people, but you are also doubling down on your previous judgements about hmosxuality. "They" is part of your problem. It's an Us v. Them mentality for you. There is nothing respectful about that.

[Gray]

On 9/25/2018 at 1:45 PM, rongo said:

Are you able to take a straw poll among them to gauge that? I think you might be surprised.

 

So I did ask people what their take on it was. The vast majority said it was considered to be serious sin. However, most did not have any ecclesiastical consequences in their churches - they expect people to work out their own sins privately with God.  Some of them said it was a sin but it's not talked about a lot in church.

A few people seemed to think it wasn't sin or at least wasn't serious. One of them cited some Biblical reasons for thinking so. Another admitted he was part of a heretical denomination. One person said she didn't hear really anything on the topic growing up.

Obviously that's not a scientific poll or anything.