Sam Young is Excommunicated

[JAHS]

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I don't know but if people are making knee jerk decisions to resign than what does that say about how they feel about their membership? like are all these people active or what? 

Anyone who leaves the church over one thing like this were already on their way out. Maybe this one last thing is what tipped them over the edge, but even if that is so their leaving was inevitable. 

[BlueDreams]

15 hours ago, lostindc said:

How should Sam and others approach Church leadership regarding the removal of questions about masturbation, pornography, sexual acts, etc.?

I was busy all yesterday. As mentioned by others, there aren't those questions in the TR interviews. The current guidelines for any interview are to focus on support parent's primary role as teaching and this: "The bishop and his counselors “emphasize the importance of keeping baptismal covenants. They teach youth to prepare to make and keep temple covenants through daily righteous living. Bishopric members encourage youth to pray regularly in private and with their family and to study the scriptures. They also encourage youth to stay close to their parents.” 

But after reading most of the posts over several pages, I don't think you're looking for removal of specific questions from a specific policy or handbook of instructions. But rather the possibility that any of these questions could come up as interview questions by bishops. If I'm understanding you correctly, feel free to correct me if I'm misunderstanding. 

I also believe I read somewhere that you had interviews that were invasive. I personally, don't think I ever experienced that as a child. The only time I can think of more invasive interviews was when a bishop once asked about my parents and when I was 21 and heading for a mission. Out of the 2, the parents one (NOTHING sexual) felt more invasive, because I wasn't at a place in my life that I could talk about their dysfunctions. I understand the bishop's desperation though...and if I had been able to talk at that time he would have been right in assuming I could have probably given needed perspective. They were in his office more than the average member and he was likely in over his head. 

I don't think more questions should be tacked onto the BIQ's for the temple recommend. But I'm concerned that the reactive solution (get rid of ANY talk of sexuality by leaders), doesn't help the problem but actually fuels our cultural dysfunctions around sex. A major problem that I see running in some of the stories you linked to (I haven't read all), some of the Bishop questions, etc is actually all tied together by our dearth of accurate communication and understanding of sexuality in general. Because it remains a taboo but also vital concern it leads to some really awkward communication about it in our culture. I've known bishops who've actually helped people come to realize their issue isn't as big as they thought it was because they'd grown up in such a cloistered family experience. By driving communication even further from other sources, these positive experiences don't have a shot to happen. I think fixation on sexual acts as a barometer of depth of sin is over-focused. As I mentioned, two interviews that I had as an adult I found invasive as well. I know now that their concern to make sure that I didn't begin my mission with guilt uncared for to only sneak up on me in the MTC or the field is likely why they did it. And missions have more specific qualifications. What would have been better is if they could have just read or handed me the expectations, asked me to read and pray over them, and to ask if there were any areas that applied to me or felt like concerns that may need further repentance. 

I liked Hamba's approach. In short, I would work to have concerns or questions be youth directed. If they have a concern, ask them what it is and how they felt the Bishop or leader could help. Follow their lead on the answer. Remind them, if its a sensitive topic (such as sexuality) that they could have another leader or parent in the room if they found that helpful. Be tentative in questions. Help the youth know they have control in the situation as to what is discussed. And well beforehand, I would love to see lessons that teach both parents/leaders children about what to expect with budding sexuality and communicating with them about it. 

THat last part is not a pipe dream. It can happen in wards. I've been apart of presentations and communications with bishops doing exactly that. 

 

7 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Blue Dreams  you said that leaders are Judges in Israel. The term has been adopted in the church, but it in no way represents how Judges in Israel functioned.  It's taking a title and distorting it. Judges, like Deborah,  judged on legal matters. 

I'm using it as is seen in modern Scripture (D&C) for this specific calling. I'm okay that it has multiple meanings and uses, some of which have changed over time. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Benk]

12 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I don't know but if people are making knee jerk decisions to resign than what does that say about how they feel about their membership? like are all these people active or what? 

According to their own stats, the self-reported numbers are overwhelmingly less-active (see: https://quitmormon.com/stats and the attached screenshot below). As for your first question, I've seen a number of people who have said that this was the last straw. When folk like the good bishop JackWagon say people who previously trusted the church implicitly to do the right thing have now lost significant trust in the institution itself, its not that much of a stretch, I don't think, to see how those who had already lost trust in the institution could be pushed over the edge by something like this. 

Edited September 17, 2018 by Benk

[BlueDreams]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

I personally believe that worthiness interviews are essential in the church keeping the integrity of its requirements to enter the temple and advance someone in the priesthood.  I don't think they should be completely abolished.  As others have pointed out, much good can come from such interviews.  Both sides seem to only be able to talk extremes at both ends of the discussion.  Isn't there some middle ground that is reasonable and not so invasive or inappropriate?

Why can't' the church add to their famous handbook of instructions offer better guidelines on how these interviews will be conducted.  Something like this:

The only question to be asked in worthiness interviews is "Are you keeping the law of chastity?"

If the answer is yes, then move on to the next question.  

If the answer is no.

If the person has expressed concerns about their worthiness, ask them how they plan to address the problem.  Maybe the person is not even ready to discuss the issue.  Maybe the person doesn't want any help in the repentance process.  Maybe they don't want you or anyone else to even know what the problem is they are dealing with. If they ask for help, figure out a way to help them meet their goal of being able to answer honestly that they are living the law of chastity once again. Your role as bishop is only to act as the gatekeeper to keep unworthy members from entering the temple.  Repentance is between the individual and the Lord.  How that repentance process happens is up to the individual.  Your help is only needed when asked for.  

This approach would give ALL the power to the individual of how the issue is discussed and how they want it addressed.   They should be told that the door is always open when they are ready for another worthiness interview or if the church can help in any way.  The integrity of the worthiness of temple attendees is kept intact.

Of course, more thought should go into exactly how the bishop's handbook is worded.

I don't know if I fully agree with the instructions you outline...but I 100% agree on having a nuanced middle ground that places bishops as more facilitators or added resources if wanted/needed and places main stewardship with the individual and God as to how they should proceed in repenting. 

 

With luv,

BD

[HappyJackWagon]

26 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't have a link, but I'll bet it referenced his statements (two, I believe) along the lines that a) anyone thinking of joining the Church shouldn't because of our interview policies, and b) parents should rethink their continuing membership in and support of such a system (as best I can recall). I know that those who don't support Sam consider such things to be encouragement to leave the Church, and those who support Sam dispute this. In the DC, the only opinion that matters is the SP, and he's the one Sam needed to satisfy. It is clear from his statements before, during, and after the DC that Sam made no attempts to satisfy the SP on this score. 

 

 

If it had been me, I would simply have said, "It is reported that you have said X, Y. and Z. Would you please state here for the DC a) whether you made these statements, and b) if you want to clarify, expand, or explain any of them?  That would have been my approach with everything. Sam could have a) backpedaled, which might have preserved his membership in some form, or b) doubled down and continued to attack the Church. I think he would have chosen the latter; he has too much invested in this and craves the attention too much to abandon his movement to preserve his membership. This would have led to his statements in the DC themselves being the primary evidence. 

I understand why the SP went with the 15/45 minute format (in order to cap the circus and keep the time reasonable), but for me, I think gravity of a DC means that you sometimes need to settle in for a marathon. All of my DCs were voluntary confession/law of chastity-related (so, no apostasy ones), but even these always took longer than an hour before the deliberation/prayer phase. I had one that took five hours, start to finish, and none of the facts were in question. It was a matter of making sure we arrived at the correct decision. 

All told, I think this was handled very well, though. Dignified, and keeping the circus atmosphere to a minimum. 

 

First, the fact that the SP didn't change his mind doesn't indicate that "Sam made no attempts" to explain his position and satisfy the SP's concerns.

You are right, of course, that the SP's opinion is the only one that mattered, but to me, that illustrates part of the problem. 1- it's a man's opinion, 2- it's the opinion of ONLY 1 man, 3- the goal should not be to convince one man of anything. To me it is a disconnect between a relationship with God and a relationship with this one man who happens to be representing the church. Those are very different things IMO, but 2 things that are often conflated.

Your approach to the question would have been much better. I would have asked things similarly. I've also been involved in marathon DC's. I never once even considered setting time lines that must be followed. I've never seen that done at the Stake or ward level. It's true, this is a unique case, but setting a 15/45 time frame is totally arbitrary and came across to me as more of a power play than anything else.

In the end, the excommunication letter was hand delivered to Sam at work on Friday. As I've stated before, it is very odd to me that the SP waited 5 days to inform Sam. We can't even blame mailing time for some of that delay. What you call a "circus" was inevitable. Whether the "circus" was at the SC after the DC, 2 days later, 5 days later, or the following Sunday, it seemed clear there would be a group gathered and there would be media attention. I don't see how the SP's delay lessened any of that. Maybe he was able to successfully shift the "circus" from his doorstep to temple square, but I don't see that his power play/delay tactic accomplished anything in minimizing the reaction.

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, Benk said:

According to their own stats, the self-reported numbers are overwhelmingly less-active (see: https://quitmormon.com/stats and the attached screenshot below). As for your first question, I've seen a number of people who have said that this was the last straw. When folk like the good bishop JackWagon say people who previously trusted the church implicitly to do the right thing have now lost significant trust in the institution itself, its not that much of a stretch, I don't think, to see how those who had already lost trust in the institution could be pushed over the edge by something like this.  

I think a lot of people went inactive over previous issues, like 2015 gay policy. Every time something like this comes up it can move people along the ladder from inactivity to resignation.

[HappyJackWagon]

29 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I don't know but if people are making knee jerk decisions to resign than what does that say about how they feel about their membership? like are all these people active or what? 

You may want to consider the possibility that people gave this deep thought and struggled on making a decision, rather than just having a knee jerk reaction. If people studied this out and decided it was best for them to resign, then I do think it says something about them, but it also says something about the church. I think it would be a wrong assumption to think that people who resign found no value in their membership or that this is the only struggle they have with the church.

Many of the resignations may very well have come from people who were disaffected long before Sam Young came along this year. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a difficult decision. Many of those people may have been hanging on, hoping they could find a way to make the church work a positive influence in their lives. Yet they gave up on that hope. A lot of people are giving up on that hope, so in my mind it doesn't matter much to me if the people are "active, or what". My guess is that the vast majority of these people have been active. Many have probably served in leadership positions. Now they're gone. It doesn't all happen in an instance, but just because someone drifts along, trying to make things work, and then finally give up on that effort, doesn't mean the church hasn't lost an important member.

Personally, I find if offensive to think that the only people who matter are those who are currently "active".

Quote

JAHS- Anyone who leaves the church over one thing like this were already on their way out. Maybe this one last thing is what tipped them over the edge, but even if that is so their leaving was inevitable. 

Yeah, good riddance to all of those slackers.

FTR- nothing is inevitable. Pretending it is simply minimizes the individual in a way that others don't need to worry about the individual reasons why a person was pushed towards resignation.

Edited September 17, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[Abulafia]

Will anybody address the disconnect in a policy that says apostasy (a nebulous term) must have a disciplinary court but not sexual abuse..and in the case of historic sexual abuse... nothing needs to be done..  

Are Sam's sins worse than Joseph Bishop's?

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

First, the fact that the SP didn't change his mind doesn't indicate that "Sam made no attempts" to explain his position and satisfy the SP's concerns.

Well, we can also go by what Sam has published (his and his wife's statements at the DC) . . .  I see no attempt to satisfy the SP's concerns. I see only playing to his audience in the post-DC circus.

You are right, of course, that the SP's opinion is the only one that mattered, but to me, that illustrates part of the problem. 1- it's a man's opinion, 2- it's the opinion of ONLY 1 man, 3- the goal should not be to convince one man of anything. To me it is a disconnect between a relationship with God and a relationship with this one man who happens to be representing the church. Those are very different things IMO, but 2 things that are often conflated.

I don't think they're conflated. As you know, while the key-holder makes the final decision, after attempting to receive revelation through the deliberation process and prayer, he is very much influenced by details, questions, answers, and observations made by others in the council. I have had my incoming preconceptions (ie., what I thought would be the inevitable outcome) completely reversed, and on more than one occasion. I've learned the DCs are organic "creatures," each with a personality, tone, and direction of their own. I've learned that you really can't go into one with pre-conceived notions of how it's "going to go down." They are exhausting, and surprising in many unexpected ways. Sometimes having to do with the outcome. 

In the end, the excommunication letter was hand delivered to Sam at work on Friday. As I've stated before, it is very odd to me that the SP waited 5 days to inform Sam. We can't even blame mailing time for some of that delay. What you call a "circus" was inevitable. Whether the "circus" was at the SC after the DC, 2 days later, 5 days later, or the following Sunday, it seemed clear there would be a group gathered and there would be media attention. I don't see how the SP's delay lessened any of that. Maybe he was able to successfully shift the "circus" from his doorstep to temple square, but I don't see that his power play/delay tactic accomplished anything in minimizing the reaction.

Well, it did push the circus to somewhere other than the stake center late that Sunday night. That is not an insignificant thing. It also forced Sam to wait for the DC's lead, and not vice versa. I see value in this moving forward, with whomever the next batter up will be to seek attention by taking on the Church in a circus social media atmosphere. That's going to be in the back of their minds, now. It is not a given that you will 100% call the shots and keep the Church back on its heels with your live streaming updates. 

---

mea culpa, here. I was wrong in thinking that he would resign rather than allow himself to be subjected to a Church court decision. 

I'm also surprised that he didn't lie and record it, anyway, to publish and try to make hay out of. That is also to his credit. 

[Duncan]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You may want to consider the possibility that people gave this deep thought and struggled on making a decision, rather than just having a knee jerk reaction. If people studied this out and decided it was best for them to resign, then I do think it says something about them, but it also says something about the church. I think it would be a wrong assumption to think that people who resign found no value in their membership or that this is the only struggle they have with the church.

Many of the resignations may very well have come from people who were disaffected long before Sam Young came along this year. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a difficult decision. Many of those people may have been hanging on, hoping they could find a way to make the church work a positive influence in their lives. Yet they gave up on that hope. A lot of people are giving up on that hope, so in my mind it doesn't matter much to me if the people are "active, or what". My guess is that the vast majority of these people have been active. Many have probably served in leadership positions. Now they're gone. It doesn't all happen in an instance, but just because someone drifts along, trying to make things work, and then finally give up on that effort, doesn't mean the church hasn't lost an important member.

Personally, I find if offensive to think that the only people who matter are those who are currently "active".

Yeah, good riddance to all of those slackers.

FTR- nothing is inevitable. Pretending it is simply minimizes the individual in a way that others don't need to worry about the individual reasons why a person was pushed towards resignation.

Everybody matters but if they don't want to be a member then the option is to leave. We were talking about the small and simple things yestarday in EQ and we all know people in leadership callings who for one reason or another quit, or got exed or whatever and it's the small and simple things. Hopefully people come back, people do get rebaptized

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You may want to consider the possibility that people gave this deep thought and struggled on making a decision, rather than just having a knee jerk reaction. If people studied this out and decided it was best for them to resign, then I do think it says something about them, but it also says something about the church. I think it would be a wrong assumption to think that people who resign found no value in their membership or that this is the only struggle they have with the church.

I think that some of the people who are resigning "found no value in their membership."

However, I agree with you that others of these persons found some value in the membership, but obviously not enough to retain it (as evidenced by their resignations).  Or else they found other things of more value.

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Personally, I find if offensive to think that the only people who matter are those who are currently "active".

I agree with this.  Regardless of their level of activity, these are still our brothers and sisters in the Gospel.  They deserve our attention and our love.

Nevertheless, at the end of the day, we must respect their agency.  That includes respecting their right to break their covenants.  There are all sorts of reasons for this.  Some people don't value these covenants at all or very much.  Some people value other things more than these covenants.  Some have simply lost track of the meaning and significance of these covenants (Lehi's vision comes to mind).  They have lost track of a testimony based on a spiritual witness, or else they never really had it to begin with.

I hope they come back, and do so for the right reasons.

Thanks,

-Smac

[provoman]

16 minutes ago, rongo said:

Well, we can also go by what Sam has published (his and his wife's statements at the DC) . . .  I see no attempt to satisfy the SP's concerns. I see only playing to his audience in the post-DC circus.

 

 

I don't think they're conflated. As you know, while the key-holder makes the final decision, after attempting to receive revelation through the deliberation process and prayer, he is very much influenced by details, questions, answers, and observations made by others in the council. I have had my incoming preconceptions (ie., what I thought would be the inevitable outcome) completely reversed, and on more than one occasion. I've learned the DCs are organic "creatures," each with a personality, tone, and direction of their own. I've learned that you really can't go into one with pre-conceived notions of how it's "going to go down." They are exhausting, and surprising in many unexpected ways. Sometimes having to do with the outcome. 

 

 

Well, it did push the circus to somewhere other than the stake center late that Sunday night. That is not an insignificant thing. It also forced Sam to wait for the DC's lead, and not vice versa. I see value in this moving forward, with whomever the next batter up will be to seek attention by taking on the Church in a circus social media atmosphere. That's going to be in the back of their minds, now. It is not a given that you will 100% call the shots and keep the Church back on its heels with your live streaming updates. 

---

mea culpa, here. I was wrong in thinking that he would resign rather than allow himself to be subjected to a Church court decision. 

I'm also surprised that he didn't lie and record it, anyway, to publish and try to make hay out of. That is also to his credit. 

Someone did record it. The question remains who did it and did Sam know about it before hand.

There recording is the evidence against Sam, which is his postings on his blog. 

Given that Sam had 45minutes, and  - based on what he posted on his blog, it does not appear that addressed  the charges or statements from his blog, I don't think excommunication was much of a concern ro him

Edited September 17, 2018 by provoman

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, provoman said:

Someone did record it.

Who recorded? Sam said he was both forced to sign an agreement not to record and also hand over his cell phone. I wonder if every other person in that room was forced to hand in their cell phones before the proceedings.

Personally, I'd love to listen.

[rongo]

11 minutes ago, provoman said:

Someone did record it. The question remains who did it and did Sam know about it before hand.

I didn't know that. I would assume that Sam himself (or his wife) recorded it then. Even though they signed a "non-recording" agreement. It would be easy to bring two phones: one you make a big production of turning off for effect, and the one you keep hidden for recording. 

I never had to deal with this, but nowadays, I would assume I was being recorded. Asking people to promise not to or sign something is no guarantee that no recording will take place. 

[JAHS]

36 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

FTR- nothing is inevitable

My daughter's love for me is.  

 

36 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Pretending it is simply minimizes the individual in a way that others don't need to worry about the individual reasons why a person was pushed towards resignation.

Others should worry about it and help to some degree but the bulk of the responsibility belongs to the individual to do whatever is necessary to prevent it from happening.
Doctrines and policies are not going to change because a few members can't agree with them. Church leaders have to consider what is best generally for the entire membership of the church.

Edited September 17, 2018 by JAHS

[HappyJackWagon]

20 minutes ago, rongo said:

Well, we can also go by what Sam has published (his and his wife's statements at the DC) . . .  I see no attempt to satisfy the SP's concerns. I see only playing to his audience in the post-DC circus.

 

 

I don't think they're conflated. As you know, while the key-holder makes the final decision, after attempting to receive revelation through the deliberation process and prayer, he is very much influenced by details, questions, answers, and observations made by others in the council. I have had my incoming preconceptions (ie., what I thought would be the inevitable outcome) completely reversed, and on more than one occasion. I've learned the DCs are organic "creatures," each with a personality, tone, and direction of their own. I've learned that you really can't go into one with pre-conceived notions of how it's "going to go down." They are exhausting, and surprising in many unexpected ways. Sometimes having to do with the outcome. 

 

 

Well, it did push the circus to somewhere other than the stake center late that Sunday night. That is not an insignificant thing. It also forced Sam to wait for the DC's lead, and not vice versa. I see value in this moving forward, with whomever the next batter up will be to seek attention by taking on the Church in a circus social media atmosphere. That's going to be in the back of their minds, now. It is not a given that you will 100% call the shots and keep the Church back on its heels with your live streaming updates. 

---

mea culpa, here. I was wrong in thinking that he would resign rather than allow himself to be subjected to a Church court decision. 

I'm also surprised that he didn't lie and record it, anyway, to publish and try to make hay out of. That is also to his credit. 

I'm curious why you think that is significant? What did it accomplish other than kicking the can over to Temple Square?

I think every critic/disaffected member is very well aware that the church doesn't like to be challenged, and when membership is on the line, the church holds all the cards. Nothing from this DC changed that. It's been well known for a long time.

I'm less interested in who the next person will be, and more interested in the next issue.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, JAHS said:

My daughter's love for me is.  

 

Others should worry about it to some degree but the bulk of the responsibility belongs to the individual to do whatever is necessary to prevent it from happening.
Doctrines and policies are not going to change because a few members can't agree with them. Church leaders have to consider what is best generally for the entire membership of the church.

Doctrines and policies have been changed many times. The "why" isn't always obvious and IMO can rarely be assigned one reason.

[Danzo]

32 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Will anybody address the disconnect in a policy that says apostasy (a nebulous term) must have a disciplinary court but not sexual abuse..and in the case of historic sexual abuse... nothing needs to be done..  

Are Sam's sins worse than Joseph Bishop's?

Excommunication for sexual sins (including abuse) seems to be a given.

Every case I have seen locally involving sexual abuse has resulted in excommunication.

Excommunication for apostasy seems to be very rare.  I have never seen it locally or personally  known anyone who was excommunicated for it.

 

[provoman]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Who recorded? Sam said he was both forced to sign an agreement not to record and also hand over his cell phone. I wonder if every other person in that room was forced to hand in their cell phones before the proceedings.

Personally, I'd love to listen.

 

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

I didn't know that. I would assume that Sam himself (or his wife) recorded it then. Even though they signed a "non-recording" agreement. It would be easy to bring two phones: one you make a big production of turning off for effect, and the one you keep hidden for recording. 

I never had to deal with this, but nowadays, I would assume I was being recorded. Asking people to promise not to or sign something is no guarantee that no recording will take place. 

It is unknown who recorded it. The availabke recording is 15 minutes long and it is is the SP speaking and reading the evidence from Sam's blog that support the charges.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, provoman said:

 

It is unknown who recorded it. The availabke recording is 15 minutes long and it is is the SP speaking and reading the evidence from Sam's blog that support the charges.

Reference please. Where can this be found?

[Danzo]

8 hours ago, lostindc said:

Nice job Danzo making pedophilia a message board argument game, that's a pretty pathetic attempt.  Of course I do not know of an offender, if I did, I would put them on blast on every board, social media site, etc.  I am pretty chill right now, but I can easily turn the tables around on many of the posts you just made.  

 

Interesting. . .

It doesn't seem to me that you have much experience with reporting actual abuse.   I remember the phone call  to the police. I remember having the  prosecutors and defense attorneys come to my house to take statements. The subpoena. (The person pleaded guilty before the trial saving my wife from having to testify).  

It seems to me that these are common sense ways of reporting abuse.

I really don't remember anyone saying the proper thing to do was to blast it on every board, social media site, etc. I suspect such an approach might do more harm than good. 

 

[JAHS]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Doctrines and policies have been changed many times. The "why" isn't always obvious and IMO can rarely be assigned one reason.

They do change but in the Lord's time;  not man's. I do think this might serve as a wake-up call to all Bishops to be a little more careful in how they handle the interviews.

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Will anybody address the disconnect in a policy that says apostasy (a nebulous term)

"Fraud" and "negligence" and "good faith" and "equitable" are "nebulous" terms, yet courts of law use them all the time.  And render decisions based on them all the time. 

That a term does not have a pristinly concise definition does not mean it cannot be defined at all.

16 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

must have a disciplinary court but not sexual abuse..and in the case of historic sexual abuse... nothing needs to be done..  

That's quite a non sequitur you have there.  

16 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Are Sam's sins worse than Joseph Bishop's?

Joseph Bishop's misconduct appears to be very serious.  But that misconduct happened decades ago.  And Bishop appears to have denied the accusations against him.  And I think there is a real question as to whether McKenna Denson was willing to testify against Joseph Bishop in 2010 (when her allegations were first presented to Bishop's local leaders).

Nevertheless, I think a disciplinary council for Joseph Bishop is required under church law.  Section 6.7.3 of Handbook 1 provides that a disciplinary council is mandatory for "serious transgression while holding a prominent church position."  "Prominent church position" is defined as "Area Seventy; temple, mission, or stake president; patriarch; or bishop (but not branch president)."  I think "MTC president" would be considered equivalent to "mission president" for the purposes of this section.  The term "serious transgression" includes, among other things, forcible rape, sexual abuse, and adultery (see Section 6.7.2), any or all of which were implicated in Ms. Denson's allegations.  

However, section 6.10.4 of Handbook 1 provides that the accused member (Bishop) "must must be given an opportunity to question any witnesses who give evidence against him."  If a witness (like Ms. Denson) is "unable" to attend, the presiding officer (the stake president) should have invited her to provide a written statement, which "may be considered in evidence" (there is no provision in the Handbook for what to do if a witness is unwilling to attend).

According to the Church, this is what happened in 2010 (speaking of the allegations against Ms. Denson) (emphasis added):

Quote

This matter was brought to the attention of the Church in 2010, when this former Church member, who served briefly as a missionary in 1984, told leaders of the Pleasant Grove Utah West Stake that she had been sexually assaulted by the president of the Provo Missionary Training Center, Joseph Bishop, 25 years earlier. They listened carefully to the claims being made and then this was immediately reported to the Pleasant Grove Police Department, and the police interviewed her at that time. The Church does not know what she said in that interview, but the Church received no further communication from the police concerning the matter.

At the same time, the Church referred these allegations to the local ecclesiastical leaders of Joseph Bishop. Those leaders met with Mr. Bishop, who denied the allegations. Unable to verify the allegations, they did not impose any formal Church discipline on Mr. Bishop at that time.

And here, regarding the second victim (emphasis added):

Quote

We share the anger and distress Church members and others feel to learn of incidents where those entrusted with sacred responsibilities violate God’s commandments and harm others. Such behavior is repulsive and sinful. The Church is looking into all aspects of the assertions on the recording of Joseph Bishop. This includes the work of outside legal counsel, who are interviewing priesthood leaders, family members, law enforcement officials and others with knowledge of these incidents.

We are aware of one other woman (who is referenced in the December recording) who informed her local ecclesiastical leaders that she was sexually abused by Joseph Bishop while he served as president of the Missionary Training Center. When she reported the alleged abuse to her local Church leaders in 2010, they provided emotional support as well as professional counseling services. Mr. Bishop’s local ecclesiastical leaders were contacted and they confronted him with her claims, which he denied, and local leaders did not feel they could pursue church discipline for Mr. Bishop.

I'm not sure how this squares with the laws of the Church, which appear to mandate a council in such circumstances (all the more so after the second victim came forward).  But even if a council had been convened, there is no guarantee as to the outcome.  I suspect this other woman was unwilling or unavailable to appear at the disciplinary council or provide a written statement.  And as Bishop denied the claims, perhaps that is why his "local leaders did not feel they could pursue church discipline for Mr. Bishop."  That does not seem to jibe with the mandatory provision for a disciplinary council in Section 6.7.3 (see above).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

I don't have a link, but I'll bet it referenced his statements (two, I believe) along the lines that a) anyone thinking of joining the Church shouldn't because of our interview policies, and b) parents should rethink their continuing membership in and support of such a system (as best I can recall). I know that those who don't support Sam consider such things to be encouragement to leave the Church, and those who support Sam dispute this. In the DC, the only opinion that matters is the SP, and he's the one Sam needed to satisfy. It is clear from his statements before, during, and after the DC that Sam made no attempts to satisfy the SP on this score. 

 

 

If it had been me, I would simply have said, "It is reported that you have said X, Y. and Z. Would you please state here for the DC a) whether you made these statements, and b) if you want to clarify, expand, or explain any of them?  That would have been my approach with everything. Sam could have a) backpedaled, which might have preserved his membership in some form, or b) doubled down and continued to attack the Church. I think he would have chosen the latter; he has too much invested in this and craves the attention too much to abandon his movement to preserve his membership. This would have led to his statements in the DC themselves being the primary evidence. 

I understand why the SP went with the 15/45 minute format (in order to cap the circus and keep the time reasonable), but for me, I think gravity of a DC means that you sometimes need to settle in for a marathon. All of my DCs were voluntary confession/law of chastity-related (so, no apostasy ones), but even these always took longer than an hour before the deliberation/prayer phase. I had one that took five hours, start to finish, and none of the facts were in question. It was a matter of making sure we arrived at the correct decision. 

All told, I think this was handled very well, though. Dignified, and keeping the circus atmosphere to a minimum. 

 

It occurs to me that of the two categories you delineate here, the disciplinary councils relating to apostasy might be the ones more prone to be protracted because of the inherent propensity for rationalization and sophistry to encroach upon the proceedings. I think it wise for leaders to beware of that and not allow the proceedings to be unduly long and drawn out. 

Edited September 17, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Stargazer]

13 hours ago, cinepro said:

I think that's the problem.  I grew up with Bishops that never asked me anything that was explicit or made me uncomfortable, so I can't understand the problem.  But if you read the reports of what people have been asked in Bishops interviews, it is obvious there is a high degree of latitude and some Bishops go into detail in ways that maybe they shouldn't.  

In my interview to receive the Aaronic priesthood (and to be ordained a Teacher, having missed Deacon, being a new convert) my bishop didn't ask me anything beyond "Do you keep the law of chastity?"  He then made a statement about how I should stay away from masturbation, but didn't ask me anything about it.  The odd thing is, I had never heard the word before, but I knew instantly what he meant.  I don't know why.  In any event I didn't consider anything in connection with the interview to be inappropriate, and in fact I found the entire experience edifying.  No subsequent interview I ever had ventured beyond "Do you keep the law of chastity". 

When I served as a branch president, I stuck to the standard T/R interview questions.  Once during an interview, in connection of the law of chastity, I had a newly married young man start to ask me about the appropriateness of something he and his wife had been doing.  But I stopped him before he described it (I did not want to know!), and told him that it was between the two of them and the Lord.  It was a small military branch, and though we had a large Primary (half the branch were children!), we had no teenaged youth.  So youth interviews never came up, at least while I was BP.