The role technology is playing in today's Church discipline.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Today, I learned of the excommunication of "Sam Young". Before today, all I had ever heard concerning him (even having to be reminded) was a hunger strike. I did not know of "crowds", websites", "podcasts", etc. Although I agreed with certain aspects of his message, as I have often had concerns with Bishop's being alone with young children (for the sake of the Bishop or the child) the Church has already taken steps to address some of these matters. What I did not know, and did not agree with was many of the other things he did, in publicly attacking the Church, Church Leaders, and the spectacle of it all. Of course only learning of his other activities in an Internet search. 

I bring this up, because there have been a number of people (as of late) who, at one time started out just expressing just a few concerns, to taking part in activities leading them being excommunicated. Now, due to ever changing ease of technology, anyone can start, "Blogs", or "Podcasts", just to name two. These things leading to  their downfall, although I clearly agree they might not see it the way I do, but these activities can and are leading to popularity they have clearly have come to enjoy. The days of discussion boards, and mods, giving members a place to discuss many things, but not allowing such discussions to get out of hand, are easily swept away. Now, the only "Mod", is the person using newer communication technology to vent, and find a following. In many cases a large following! These "followings", lead to much larger audiences, and a kind of popularity that their ego's can't let go of. So, what might have been a few threads on either friendly or unfriendly websites, are now becoming "movements". These people are finding that becoming leaders of such movements, that it is impossible to give them up. In fact, once concerns are expressed, that go ignored,  then letters sent to discuss these matters in Church proceedings, they just ramp up their game, inviting all to come along for the ride. In so doing, making the matter even more public, gaining more followers, it all becomes to much to let go off, and leads to the worst conclusions. 

We currently have a very talented, and charismatic Pastor here in the Sunny South. He has gained such a large following on Facebook (1,500,000+ followers, or so he says), it has led to the loss of his Church, the breaking up if his marriage, because of infidelity, both and home, and at Church. Now, I see podcasts where young men, and women, doing their own podcasts. Right now they say it is to debunk anti-Mormon comments, and some others things, but much of what is said is in error. True enough very often the simple mistakes of youth, young wives, or father's barely home from their missions. My fear (or my desire) for any member, even though some have serious doubts and issues, I would rather have them turning those doubts, where they could and would be discussing them among the believing. 

Usually it took a lot of effort, a lot of leg work, or a platform like teaching at a university, but now just a a Smartphone, and you could find yourself so, a leading of a moment. A movement they never even supposed theirselves to be at the center of,  an finding themselves excommunicated, and then soon, even the "followers", will hace vanished, almost quickly as their membership. 

 

Thoughts.  

 

[sunstoned]

It is a brave new world out there.  News and fact checking now travels at the speed of light.  If you believe in such things, then this could be seen as a fulfillment of prophecy:

Quote

What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. -- Mat 10:37

This is much to the chagrin of church leaders and other authoritarian types that shun transparency and open dialog.   The Internet along with the social media that it supports is at least partial fulfillment of this prophecy.   There is nowhere to hide anymore.  All of our works are now available for public scrutiny. They are being shouted from the virtual house tops.  The world knows who Bishop Sam Young is, and what he was trying to accomplish.  The world also knows how he was treated by the LDS church.  The same holds true with  Joe Bishop.  His works are known.  How the church is handling this is also known.  The internet is bringing light to all the dark corners.  Organizations and people can no longer operate in secret.  The #MeToo movement is a prime example of this.  What you state as "their downfall" is seen by many as standing up for a worthy cause.

 

[The Nehor]

Transparency is massively overrated in our society. I take that back. It is lauded only until one is the subject of said transparency.

[carbon dioxide]

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Transparency is massively overrated in our society. I take that back. It is lauded only until one is the subject of said transparency.

Transparency only has meaning if one is able to properly assess the information. 

[Storm Rider]

The more the internet takes over the more stupid people become. Attention spans last what, on average nowadays, 15 seconds?  The masses can only spend enough time studying an issue if it is delivered in sound bytes - any real personal research is left undone. However, opinion takes on the role of facts, truth - especially the ubiquitous "my truth" as if individuals only live in bubbles and truth is meaningless unless some ignoramous states their opinion as a glorious truth she/he fell upon because they certainly did not sit up a bodhi tree to find it.  

It is those who make states such as, "This is much to the chagrin of church leaders and other authoritarian types that shun transparency and open dialog."  This caliber of statement is evidence of someone's personal "truth" stated as a fact found only in a bubble of their own making.   No evidence to support, but the need to slander others so that their reality is more real while desperately shoveling more sand under their new house of twigs. 

Transparency only has value if "I" want "you" to share. It has no value when "I" must do the sharing with all of "you".  

We have an overload of information without any ability to digest or understand it. Yet, we have many ready and able individuals prepared to be a rebel as soon as they find their cause. 

Edited September 19, 2018 by Storm Rider

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

The more the internet takes over the stupid people become also.

What?

[BonhoefferFan]

Just my 2 cents, online discussion is great, educational opportunities (good ones) are multiplying, but I also think it is quite easy to lose sight of people and relationships.  People can be MUCH meaner online than they will be in person, and I think this can make any relationship spin out of control.  I think Sam Young had good intentions, but honestly in the end it seemed like a vanity project to me, and I agreed with his position. 

[Guest]

14 hours ago, sunstoned said:

It is a brave new world out there.  News and fact checking now travels at the speed of light.  If you believe in such things, then this could be seen as a fulfillment of prophecy:

This is much to the chagrin of church leaders and other authoritarian types that shun transparency and open dialog.   The Internet along with the social media that it supports is at least partial fulfillment of this prophecy.   There is nowhere to hide anymore.  All of our works are now available for public scrutiny. They are being shouted from the virtual house tops.  The world knows who Bishop Sam Young is, and what he was trying to accomplish.  The world also knows how he was treated by the LDS church.  The same holds true with  Joe Bishop.  His works are known.  How the church is handling this is also known.  The internet is bringing light to all the dark corners.  Organizations and people can no longer operate in secret.  The #MeToo movement is a prime example of this.  What you state as "their downfall" is seen by many as standing up for a worthy cause.

 

Does persuading others to leave the Church, or not join the Church, qualify as shinning the light on (or at) the darkness? Did he truly remain on hunger strike until the Church changed it policies? My guess is that he is still healthy, still caring for that which is most precious to mankind, his own flesh. Or, just lke in other situations, the message, or the hype became larger than the man, or the real "original" message? The crowds will go away, they always do, and the movement with become a byline in some blog, where no one reads anymore. Then sadly, the crusader will find himself alone, no longer a member of his Faith, the one he wished to influence, where he can do nothing from the outside looking in. Was the cause worthy, the original cause of Bishop's and young men and women alone discussing very sensitive things, just to go to the Temple for baptisms, yes it was. The Church had already made changes to address aspects of this, but it was full steam ahead with this brother, because they rain was to far down the tracks to stop. The movement had become something he could not abandon, even if he wanted. The fear of widespread rejection was more important that the 15 High Priests, who sought to reclaim their brother.

If you have ever been a part of a Stake Disciplinary Counsel, you know that every avenue if taken to redeem a fellow Priesthood holder. There are pleadings, discussions and humble prayers to know what can be done. It is the same way in a Bishop counsel, I have sadly been on a few of these, the same thing, pleadings, discussion, and prayers. Each prays individually, out loud and kneeling, and then together as a Bishopric. As always, every avenue is take to find a way to "never", excommunicate a single soul. Not to mention many, many tears shed by all. 

[Robert F. Smith]

16 hours ago, sunstoned said:

It is a brave new world out there.  News and fact checking now travels at the speed of light.  If you believe in such things, then this could be seen as a fulfillment of prophecy:

This is much to the chagrin of church leaders and other authoritarian types that shun transparency and open dialog.   The Internet along with the social media that it supports is at least partial fulfillment of this prophecy.   There is nowhere to hide anymore.  All of our works are now available for public scrutiny. They are being shouted from the virtual house tops.  The world knows who Bishop Sam Young is, and what he was trying to accomplish.  The world also knows how he was treated by the LDS church.  The same holds true with  Joe Bishop.  His works are known.  How the church is handling this is also known.  The internet is bringing light to all the dark corners.  Organizations and people can no longer operate in secret.  The #MeToo movement is a prime example of this.  What you state as "their downfall" is seen by many as standing up for a worthy cause.

You might want to read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World before making false comparisons.  In fact, that so-called "brave new world" is as phony as a three dollar bill, and has little but self-indulgence, falsehood, and violence to offer us.  Huxley tells a parable for our times of a dystopian (not utopian) world -- the sort we now live in, to our chagrin.  The internet does indeed bring us all sorts of information and disinformation, but does  not tell us how to distinguish between fact and falsehood.  Today, in Trumpworld, people believe whatever they want to believe, without being bothered by fact or logic.  Accurate reportage is now thrown out the window in favor of whatever personal preferences serve one's a priori interest.  Overweening bias and prejudice über alles.

[HappyJackWagon]

18 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Today, I learned of the excommunication of "Sam Young". Before today, all I had ever heard concerning him (even having to be reminded) was a hunger strike. I did not know of "crowds", websites", "podcasts", etc. Although I agreed with certain aspects of his message, as I have often had concerns with Bishop's being alone with young children (for the sake of the Bishop or the child) the Church has already taken steps to address some of these matters. What I did not know, and did not agree with was many of the other things he did, in publicly attacking the Church, Church Leaders, and the spectacle of it all. Of course only learning of his other activities in an Internet search. 

I bring this up, because there have been a number of people (as of late) who, at one time started out just expressing just a few concerns, to taking part in activities leading them being excommunicated. Now, due to ever changing ease of technology, anyone can start, "Blogs", or "Podcasts", just to name two. These things leading to  their downfall, although I clearly agree they might not see it the way I do, but these activities can and are leading to popularity they have clearly have come to enjoy. The days of discussion boards, and mods, giving members a place to discuss many things, but not allowing such discussions to get out of hand, are easily swept away. Now, the only "Mod", is the person using newer communication technology to vent, and find a following. In many cases a large following! These "followings", lead to much larger audiences, and a kind of popularity that their ego's can't let go of. So, what might have been a few threads on either friendly or unfriendly websites, are now becoming "movements". These people are finding that becoming leaders of such movements, that it is impossible to give them up. In fact, once concerns are expressed, that go ignored,  then letters sent to discuss these matters in Church proceedings, they just ramp up their game, inviting all to come along for the ride. In so doing, making the matter even more public, gaining more followers, it all becomes to much to let go off, and leads to the worst conclusions. 

We currently have a very talented, and charismatic Pastor here in the Sunny South. He has gained such a large following on Facebook (1,500,000+ followers, or so he says), it has led to the loss of his Church, the breaking up if his marriage, because of infidelity, both and home, and at Church. Now, I see podcasts where young men, and women, doing their own podcasts. Right now they say it is to debunk anti-Mormon comments, and some others things, but much of what is said is in error. True enough very often the simple mistakes of youth, young wives, or father's barely home from their missions. My fear (or my desire) for any member, even though some have serious doubts and issues, I would rather have them turning those doubts, where they could and would be discussing them among the believing. 

Usually it took a lot of effort, a lot of leg work, or a platform like teaching at a university, but now just a a Smartphone, and you could find yourself so, a leading of a moment. A movement they never even supposed theirselves to be at the center of,  an finding themselves excommunicated, and then soon, even the "followers", will hace vanished, almost quickly as their membership. 

 

Thoughts.  

 

You seem to be saying that you find danger in people speaking their minds and finding an audience of people who will listen.

The technology may be different but the basic behavior has always been the same. Some people feel that they have something to say, they say it and try to convince other people of their point of view. Others agree and share. More people listen. The person keeps talking. Whether face to face, in written word like books/magazines/newspapers, video (news shows), audio (radio), it's all the same. The technology makes it easier for people to communicate with others. I think that's a good thing.

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You seem to be saying that you find danger in people speaking their minds and finding an audience of people who will listen.

The technology may be different but the basic behavior has always been the same. Some people feel that they have something to say, they say it and try to convince other people of their point of view. Others agree and share. More people listen. The person keeps talking. Whether face to face, in written word like books/magazines/newspapers, video (news shows), audio (radio), it's all the same. The technology makes it easier for people to communicate with others. I think that's a good thing.

No, just noting that there are dangers, and how technology is playing a role in today's Church. I did of course admit that others may see things differently, I guess that is being overlooked. But, by no means do I suggest my opinion is superior, I just listed what I have observed. 

Edited September 18, 2018 by Bill "Papa" Lee

[Guest]

4 hours ago, BonhoefferFan said:

Just my 2 cents, online discussion is great, educational opportunities (good ones) are multiplying, but I also think it is quite easy to lose sight of people and relationships.  People can be MUCH meaner online than they will be in person, and I think this can make any relationship spin out of control.  I think Sam Young had good intentions, but honestly in the end it seemed like a vanity project to me, and I agreed with his position. 

That was the point, that quit possibly expressed poorly. The point about how at the it seemed to be vanity in the end. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You might want to read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World before making false comparisons.  In fact, that so-called "brave new world" is as phony as a three dollar bill, and has little but self-indulgence, falsehood, and violence to offer us.  Huxley tells a parable for our times of a dystopian (not utopian) world -- the sort we now live in, to our chagrin.  The internet does indeed bring us all sorts of information and disinformation, but does  not tell us how to distinguish between fact and falsehood.  Today, in Trumpworld, people believe whatever they want to believe, without being bothered by fact or logic.  Accurate reportage is now thrown out the window in favor of whatever personal preferences serve one's a priori interest.  Overweening bias and prejudice über alles.

Well, I had hope politics was not brought into this thread. That seemed a short trip from religious commentary and debate, to today's politics. 

[sunstoned]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You might want to read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World before making false comparisons.  In fact, that so-called "brave new world" is as phony as a three dollar bill, and has little but self-indulgence, falsehood, and violence to offer us.  Huxley tells a parable for our times of a dystopian (not utopian) world -- the sort we now live in, to our chagrin.  The internet does indeed bring us all sorts of information and disinformation, but does  not tell us how to distinguish between fact and falsehood.  Today, in Trumpworld, people believe whatever they want to believe, without being bothered by fact or logic.  Accurate reportage is now thrown out the window in favor of whatever personal preferences serve one's a priori interest.  Overweening bias and prejudice über alles.

Bringing this back to the church: I stand by my remarks.  If I am CRF'ed, then I will point to the the  plummeting membership figures, which line up quite nicely with the advent of the internet.  Case in point is the announcement of  Sam Young's excommunication  which resulted in over 700 resignations on Quitmormon.com.  Yes, it is truly a brave new world, and the current crop of church leaders need to clue in or they will continue will loose the next generation.

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Bringing this back to the church: I stand by my remarks.  If I am CRF'ed, then I will point to the the  plummeting membership figures, which line up quite nicely with the advent of the internet.  Case in point is the announcement of  Sam Young's excommunication  which resulted in over 700 resignations on Quitmormon.com.  Yes, it is truly a brave new world, and the current crop of church leaders need to clue in or they will continue will loose the next generation.

Your false comments here point up the very problem which a dystopia like Huxley's Brave New World predicted.  You turn reality upside down by painting the "brave new world" as new and brave, when exactly the opposite is the case.  A dispassionate reporter would give us real numbers and trajectories, without all the anti-Mormon passion, which to me is just as annoying as idiotic defenses of the indefensible, and both of which we get on a daily basis from vast internet sources.  Following the hysteria of Trumpworld and its ilk may make people happy who want only one story to dominate the scene, and are not at all interested in fairness and balance, but it is bound to come a cropper.

One of the rules of good reportage is the even-handed assessment of the news (good or bad), and that depends very heavily upon corroboration -- not simply blind faith in the sources which tell you what you already want to hear.

[Robert F. Smith]

17 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Well, I had hope politics was not brought into this thread. That seemed a short trip from religious commentary and debate, to today's politics. 

You may not have noticed, Bill, but we are looking at a medical marijuana issue on the Utah ballot for this Fall on which the Brethren have taken a very public stand.  Religion and politics are not so easily separated, as the harsh prophesies of Lehi against the administration of the Kingdom of Judah demonstrate.  Both he and Jeremiah were speaking politically as well as religiously, and both were harshly persecuted for it -- Lehi having to flee for his life, and Jeremiah being arrested and placed in a dungeon.

[sunstoned]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Your false comments here point up the very problem which a dystopia like Huxley's Brave New World predicted.  You turn reality upside down by painting the "brave new world" as new and brave, when exactly the opposite is the case.  A dispassionate reporter would give us real numbers and trajectories, without all the anti-Mormon passion, which to me is just as annoying as idiotic defenses of the indefensible, and both of which we get on a daily basis from vast internet sources.  Following the hysteria of Trumpworld and its ilk may make people happy who want only one story to dominate the scene, and are not at all interested in fairness and balance, but it is bound to come a cropper.

One of the rules of good reportage is the even-handed assessment of the news (good or bad), and that depends very heavily upon corroboration -- not simply blind faith in the sources which tell you what you already want to hear.

The tone you have taken is not becoming of you.  In spite of this disappointing post, I still believe you are above the low tactics of condescension and adhominem attacks.  Numbers are numbers, and they have little to do with any anti-mormon passion you feel I have.

Edited September 20, 2018 by sunstoned

[Robert F. Smith]

1 minute ago, sunstoned said:

Your tone you have taken is not becoming of you.  In spite of this disappointing post, I still believe you are above the low tactics of condescension and adhominem attacks.  Numbers are numbers, and they have little to do with any anti-mormon passion you feel I have.

You seem to think that Trumpisms are now in fashion, and that there are no consequences for that downward spiral into "tis so, tis not."  Surely there is a better way.