My first and only Sam Young resignations*

[rongo]

*Although I moved a couple of months ago, I still haven't been replaced as bishop, so I continue to get communications and mail from Salt Lake. I went to a football game with my former 2nd counselor Saturday, and he said that I am like a ghost on the ward list. I'm listed, but with no phone number or address. 

---

I got a letter informing me that a husband and wife had resigned their membership by way of a law firm, and that Salt Lake is taking care of it and that all contact is to cease because of threat of a lawsuit. This couple has been "out" of the Church for a long time, so this wasn't a surprise to me. When I was called, I reached out to them in getting to know people I didn't know, and was told that they didn't want contact and didn't want to discuss their issues with the Church. Over the last three years, the wife (she comments on Facebook on the community page) accumulated more and more facial piercings and tattoos. I'm assuming that this law firm is the "quit mormon" one, and I'm also assuming that the Sam Young resignations were a key factor in the precise timing.

This is the first time that I have known anyone who resigned over the recent Church protest actions, but they also were by no means "active" members who flipped instantly over "I stand with Sam" emotion. Going along with earlier discussion about the relative impact of Sam Young resignees, they anecdotally support my argument that they largely don't affect the active Church. Hardly anyone in my ward knew these people, and hardly anyone will know that they are gone. It's sad, and I wish that they would have at least talked to me years ago and over the years, but it is what it is. You also have to respect people's wishes and give them space when they demand that. 

[bluebell]

Interesting stuff.

It's also interesting that your ward hasn't had a bishop for two months.  I didn't even know that was possible.

[rongo]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Interesting stuff.

It's also interesting that your ward hasn't had a bishop for two months.  I didn't even know that was possible.

Well, as my 2nd counselor said, we also still don't have an elders quorum presidency, and General Conference is only two weeks away. We're coming up on six months for that. 

It's been really hard on my counselors. 

[rongo]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Interesting stuff.

It's also interesting that your ward hasn't had a bishop for two months.  I didn't even know that was possible.

Another interesting think I didn't know until this: when I was called as a counselor in YM (+ deacons advisor and scoutmaster), my new ward couldn't put me in the callings in the system . . . because I was still listed as a bishop somewhere else. I didn't know that, but then, how often does that happen? I also have simultaneous access to two different stake lists, but I still have full access to my former ward's finances and full Leader and Clerk Resources. 

Hopefully any day now that I lose access . . .  I just hope they figure it out before tithing settlement. They already did the August audit with a stake presidency counselor filling in for the bishop, but I don't think that's strictly "kosher." 

[Gray]

26 minutes ago, rongo said:

*Although I moved a couple of months ago, I still haven't been replaced as bishop, so I continue to get communications and mail from Salt Lake. I went to a football game with my former 2nd counselor Saturday, and he said that I am like a ghost on the ward list. I'm listed, but with no phone number or address. 

---

I got a letter informing me that a husband and wife had resigned their membership by way of a law firm, and that Salt Lake is taking care of it and that all contact is to cease because of threat of a lawsuit. This couple has been "out" of the Church for a long time, so this wasn't a surprise to me. When I was called, I reached out to them in getting to know people I didn't know, and was told that they didn't want contact and didn't want to discuss their issues with the Church. Over the last three years, the wife (she comments on Facebook on the community page) accumulated more and more facial piercings and tattoos. I'm assuming that this law firm is the "quit mormon" one, and I'm also assuming that the Sam Young resignations were a key factor in the precise timing.

This is the first time that I have known anyone who resigned over the recent Church protest actions, but they also were by no means "active" members who flipped instantly over "I stand with Sam" emotion. Going along with earlier discussion about the relative impact of Sam Young resignees, they anecdotally support my argument that they largely don't affect the active Church. Hardly anyone in my ward knew these people, and hardly anyone will know that they are gone. It's sad, and I wish that they would have at least talked to me years ago and over the years, but it is what it is. You also have to respect people's wishes and give them space when they demand that. 

Few people flip over immediately. What seems to happen is that one scandal might turn people inactive. More scandals down the road cause them to resign. Active members are probably more likely to go inactive over this than to resign just yet. Two or three scandals down the road, that's where they'll resign.

Incidentally, the exmo thing where they just do the opposite of what they were taught in church (as in getting tons of trashy tattoos and piercings), is really dumb. Just because it goes against the church's advice doesn't make it a good idea, you edgy exmos. #arresteddevelopment

Edited September 24, 2018 by Gray

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

They already did the August audit with a stake presidency counselor filling in for the bishop, but I don't think that's strictly "kosher." 

As long as it wasn't the counselor over the audit it sounds fine.  In the absence of a bishop anything that the counselors to the bishop couldn't take care of would be handled by the stake president, who could delegate one of his counselors.

20 minutes ago, rongo said:

Although I moved a couple of months ago, I still haven't been replaced as bishop,

I wonder if a name or two has been submitted to the First Presidency, but they haven't been approved.

[stemelbow]

Most people I know hit a point of the last straw.  Something hits and they finally let go completely.  Wife and I went from completely active, with callings and recommends to my wife giving up her recommend and calling in one day and never going back.  Seriously it was a one day turn around in that sense--although as it was she struggled with making it work for a handful of years before her final calling it quits.  Me?  I still show up from time to time, even though I don't really consider myself a believer.  And they never released me from my last calling, as I still show up on the tools app with that calling, even though I told them I won't be able to continue helping with it.  We all travel our paths, I suppose, and move in our own ways.  

I'm sad to hear that many members see the only ones who really count are the ones who are active, though.  The GAs have tried to drive the impression that those who leave are people who were going to leave anyway and so its never a big deal.  I suppose it's true, but as I see it, people run through stages.  They go gradually from active participants to less invested active members to less invested less active members to those who simply don't go any more to those who remove their names for various reasons.  I know of many took their names off after Nov 2015.  Even though they were already inactive members, it was a move they felt they had to make for themselves.  They finally separated any hope they might have been holding on to in going back.  

I still value things like leaving the 99 for the one type of stuff.  Many in the Church seem extremely comfortable with letting the one go because they are a dark a loathsome one anyway.  So while I'm sure your impression is pretty common in the Church (as I've seen it my whole life) I think the bigger picture is missed.  Maybe not a ton of active members left the church due to Sam Young, as in an overnight change, but perhaps many felt the sting and pain of it, which will only get added to in time.  As more events come and go they too might find themselves on the outside looking in.  And frankly the attitude that members who leave weren't really worth it anyway, only helps push out others.  

 

But, hey, if that's your goal, have at it.  Many here have made the point that pushing out those who doubt and struggle will only make the elite crew that remains stronger, and if so the Church will be better off and a better force anyway.  Ok.  But again, that type of thinking and attitude is what many of us leavers are happy to leave behind.  

[rongo]

Just now, ksfisher said:

I wonder if a name or two has been submitted to the First Presidency, but they haven't been approved.

I notified the stake presidency in May that I was moving in July. A few weeks ago, the stake president asked our ward to fast for him to receive inspiration as to whom to recommend. I really hope that an application is pending. It has been really hard on the ward and counselors. The lack of an elders quorum presidency is also glaring, and that is completely within the stake's power, without needing approval from Salt Lake. The list of potential men is not a large one, and there is considerable overlap between the bishop and EQP possibilities. 

I think that he wants clear and definite revelation, and sometimes God wants us to move forward with our best efforts. A favorite quote of mine from Brigham Young:

"If I do not know the will of my Father, and what He requires of me in a certain transaction, if I ask Him to give me wisdom concerning any requirement in life, or in regard to my own course, or that of my friends, my family, my children, or those that I preside over, and get no answer from Him, and then do the very best that my judgment will teach me, He is bound to own and honor that transaction, and He will do so to all intents and purposes."

You have to fill key positions quickly with the best people available, and if you don't feel that God overwhelmed you with revelation, he will "own and honor" what you came up with with your best efforts. 

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The GAs have tried to drive the impression that those who leave are people who were going to leave anyway and so its never a big deal.  I suppose it's true, but as I see it, people run through stages. 

It's hard to get away from this impression when, anecdotally, it almost always is the case. Very rarely do fully engaged, active, and believing members suddenly up and leave. Those who do have been "out" for quite a long time. 

It is also true that, as you and others point out, some people go through a slow and steady erosion of faith over time. My point is that even in these cases, when people do leave, their influence isn't such that it impacts the believing members, snowballing effect-style. I think that critics and people on their way out want to make the impression that these resignations impact the active, believing Church, but I see no indication that this is the case. Unless it might be a link in the chain in some people's eventual slow and steady erosion. 

[ksfisher]

Just now, rongo said:

I think that he wants clear and definite revelation

Surely this isn't the first time this stake presidency has had to call a bishop or and elders quorum president.  All three should also have extensive experience at the ward level with filling callings.  Perhaps there is something going on here that you're not aware of.

[changed]

I personally went inactive over Sam Young issues - One year ago I was fully active - calling, TR, everything -  I turned in my TR, asked to be released from my calling, and now no longer attend church, all within the last year.  This was from two high priests who should not have been high priests, involved what I now know was years and years and years of abuse.  Calling after calling, child after child, year after year - and the church did nothing but encourage them to attend addiction recov groups.  One of the HP's is now in jail.  The church did NOT put him in jail.  The victims were all on their own through all of this.

My TBM sister-in-law has also left the church over this.

Yes, active members are resigning over this stuff.  

Edited September 24, 2018 by changed

[clarkgoble]

37 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Interesting stuff.

It's also interesting that your ward hasn't had a bishop for two months.  I didn't even know that was possible.

It's not that uncommon actually. Happened in a friend's ward too.

[Exiled]

I personally don't see the point in resigning. I think the church just puts the resigned on a different list. Perhaps it serves as a minor form of protest to counter how the church excommunicates/disciplines disagreeing "apostates?" It's like saying I break up with you prior to you breaking up with me. However, it can serve a political purpose as in Mr. Runnells' case.

[rongo]

Just now, ksfisher said:

Surely this isn't the first time this stake presidency has had to call a bishop or and elders quorum president.  All three should also have extensive experience at the ward level with filling callings.  Perhaps there is something going on here that you're not aware of.

Our prior elders quorum presidency and high priest group leadership took five months to call. This isn't the first time it's happened. 

He is a very good man, and a dear friend. He takes an extremely long time to arrive at decisions or "pull the trigger." This was also an issue with discipline. We had people whom he needed to make a determination on scope and venue, and this took months to even meet with them and make a decision on what level the council would be. Once, because this was taking months, I suggested that he allow it to be at the ward level and cap the maximum consequence at disfellowshipment (this was a MP holder), and he agreed. But the poor man was getting stressed waiting and waiting for a decision on what level his council would be. This was also extremely stressful to people who wanted to get it over with and get started on the road back. It also has taken forever to get reinstatement determinations. We worked assiduously to get authorization from him to hold a long overdue reinstatement council the week I was moving, because I was afraid it would never happen once I moved. 

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

It's hard to get away from this impression when, anecdotally, it almost always is the case. Very rarely do fully engaged, active, and believing members suddenly up and leave. Those who do have been "out" for quite a long time. 

I think I agree that there are stages (and I also know what you're saying too).  I told of how my niece and her husband resigned over this (how the leaders dealt with Sam Young) and both of them were very active and serving in leadership positions in their ward.  I'm still pretty much in shock over it, but don't know all the details yet (other than this was an issue they both felt strongly about obviously).

I do believe there are a lot of members who give the appearance of being fully engaged, active and believing members who are not (for lots of reasons, but mainly I think family issues, keeping the peace in their marriage, social reasons and more).  

I doubt it's just one issue usually that would cause someone to stop attending or resign, but something that has been building.  The problem is, we can't tell what is going on behind the scenes with active members and many are extremely skilled at faking it, IMO.....just going from some experiences I've had with members and family.

But no one should ever state or give the impression that just because it's only someone who was inactive who resigned, it's not still a loss and that they were not important.  (I don't feel you did this, rongo....just making that clear).

[HappyJackWagon]

14 minutes ago, rongo said:

It's hard to get away from this impression when, anecdotally, it almost always is the case. Very rarely do fully engaged, active, and believing members suddenly up and leave. Those who do have been "out" for quite a long time. 

It is also true that, as you and others point out, some people go through a slow and steady erosion of faith over time. My point is that even in these cases, when people do leave, their influence isn't such that it impacts the believing members, snowballing effect-style. I think that critics and people on their way out want to make the impression that these resignations impact the active, believing Church, but I see no indication that this is the case. Unless it might be a link in the chain in some people's eventual slow and steady erosion. 

Does it matter if someone leaves immediately over one issue or if they fade away over time because of multiple issues. It sounds like you're suggesting the ones that matter most are the ones who leave immediately, and like Stem, I'd disagree with that assertion. There may be many reasons a person tries to hang on for a long period of time instead of letting it all go instantly.

I had a conversation this weekend with the local United Methodist pastor. She explained the UMC process of youth protection. 1- Windows in every door  2- 2 deep leadership in every class/activity with children/youth 18 and under  3- no one-on-one pastor/youth interactions  4- EVERY person in the congregation who teaches a class or group or even substitutes must first complete a 2 hour online or in person youth protection training. NO exceptions. She said that when this process was first initiated there were many members who were offended by it. "I'm ________, and I've been a member of the church for 20 years. Everyone knows me." But the message was, "great. No offense is intended, but if you are going to work with children in any way, this training must be completed." After the initial hiccups, everything has gone great and everyone accepts and even appreciates the changes now. People get certified for 4 years with the training and then re-up annually with an additional/shorter training review. She stressed that the approach protects the children but also the volunteers who work with them. I couldn't agree more.

Our church could do something similar. They NEED to do something similar. It's not rocket science.

[clarkgoble]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I do believe there are a lot of members who give the appearance of being fully engaged, active and believing members who are not (for lots of reasons, but mainly I think family issues, keeping the peace in their marriage, social reasons and more).  

Honestly we typically don't know what's going on in other people's lives. Some people who don't look like they're devoted are among the most devoted and people who seem very active sometimes are living a lie for other reasons. 

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I had a conversation this weekend with the local United Methodist pastor. She explained the UMC process of youth protection. 1- Windows in every door  2- 2 deep leadership in every class/activity with children/youth 18 and under  3- no one-on-one pastor/youth interactions  4- EVERY person in the congregation who teaches a class or group or even substitutes must first complete a 2 hour online or in person youth protection training. NO exceptions. She said that when this process was first initiated there were many members who were offended by it. "I'm ________, and I've been a member of the church for 20 years. Everyone knows me." But the message was, "great. No offense is intended, but if you are going to work with children in any way, this training must be completed." After the initial hiccups, everything has gone great and everyone accepts and even appreciates the changes now. People get certified for 4 years with the training and then re-up annually with an additional/shorter training review. She stressed that the approach protects the children but also the volunteers who work with them. I couldn't agree more.

Our church could do something similar. They NEED to do something similar. It's not rocket science.

Most of that has been implemented for years already. About the only thing missing is the online training, but even there quite a few have had that due to scouting requirements. I do think it'd be useful to have more generally. The Bishop one on one meetings are the one exception but that's already been changed but I think is a bit more complicated for various reasons.

 

 

Edited September 24, 2018 by clarkgoble

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, changed said:

I personally went inactive over Sam Young issues - One year ago I was fully active - calling, TR, everything -  I turned in my TR, asked to be released from my calling, and now no longer attend church, all within the last year. 

I am sorry to hear that.  I hope there is a way for reconciliation.

13 minutes ago, changed said:

This was from two high priests who should not have been high priests, involved what I now know was years and years and years of abuse. 

Not sure what this means.  

13 minutes ago, changed said:

Calling after calling, child after child, year after year - and the church did nothing but encourage them to attend addiction recov groups.  One of the HP's is now in jail.  The church did NOT put him in jail. 

I don't understand.  You are faulting the Church for "NOT put[ting] him in jail?"  How would that work?

And how is it that the other HP is not in jail?

13 minutes ago, changed said:

The victims were all on their own through all of this.

Again, I don't understand.  What is it that you expected the Church to do that it did not do?

13 minutes ago, changed said:

My TBM sister-in-law has also left the church over this.

Yes, active members are resigning over this stuff.  

That is unfortunate.

On the one had, some members deeply resent "the Church" being too involved in the lives of its members (as evidenced by, for example, objections to bishops receiving confessions of misconduct, objections to the Church disciplining Sam Young, etc.).  And yet the Church is also faulted for not being involved enough in the lives of its members (such as your very strange complaint that the Church "did NOT put him {a high priest} in jail").

D&C 134:10 merits some attention here:

Quote

We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

Personally, I am grateful that the Church disclaims secular authority, and otherwise limits its ability to discipline members.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I do believe there are a lot of members who give the appearance of being fully engaged, active and believing members who are not (for lots of reasons, but mainly I think family issues, keeping the peace in their marriage, social reasons and more).  

Without a doubt. I think there are signs and inklings, though, for people who know them well (or whom they are comfortable opening up to).

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

It's hard to get away from this impression when, anecdotally, it almost always is the case. Very rarely do fully engaged, active, and believing members suddenly up and leave. Those who do have been "out" for quite a long time. 

It is also true that, as you and others point out, some people go through a slow and steady erosion of faith over time. My point is that even in these cases, when people do leave, their influence isn't such that it impacts the believing members, snowballing effect-style. I think that critics and people on their way out want to make the impression that these resignations impact the active, believing Church, but I see no indication that this is the case. Unless it might be a link in the chain in some people's eventual slow and steady erosion. 

Well Rongo, at what point does one who stops going to Church, or goes from every week, to once a month to not going not hit you?  I mean you seem to think if some event doesn't cause the RS and YM's second counselor to leave then it's not really affecting the Church.  It seems to be the epitome of short-sightedness to think that people leaving who have essentially already left before some official separation means that members aren't really being affected.  You seem to be doing what the GAs have done and have simply dismissed the individuals themselves, confirming within yourself that those who get tattoos and piercings aren't for God anyway, as if there's some good riddance to pronounce.  

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Does it matter if someone leaves immediately over one issue or if they fade away over time because of multiple issues. It sounds like you're suggesting the ones that matter most are the ones who leave immediately, and like Stem, I'd disagree with that assertion. There may be many reasons a person tries to hang on for a long period of time instead of letting it all go instantly.

All I'm saying is that the impact of leaving doesn't pack as good of a wallop if people have clearly been heading in that direction for some time now. 

Our church could do something similar. They NEED to do something similar. It's not rocket science.

I think things are heading that way for the Church, so be patient. I think we'll get full youth protection training, chaperoned interviews, windows in bishop's doors, the works, eventually. I'm not happy about it, but that's the way I see the wind blowing. Patience, HappyJack!  

[Walden]

I was a former member who slowly went inactive over the years due to lack of belief and finally resigned officially after the church's call to action in California over the Prop 8 stuff. I hadn't been a believing member for a few years, but I didn't officially resign because I knew it would break by TBM parent's hearts....I figured I wasn't attending and didn't believe, so what was the point in hurting my parents over something I deemed inconsequential. I got regular, friendly visits each month from my home teacher, who I was friendly with, but beyond that I had no affiliation with the church. When the LDS church came out vocally/actively/politically from the pulpit in support of Prop 8, I turned in my official resignation to SLC, who in turn reached out to my parents (instead of me) in an effort to guilt me into rescinding my resignation. Despite my parents tears and pleading, I went through with the resignation. To me, it was a matter of integrity.

And no, I did not leave in order to sin, nor did I accumulate any tattoos or take up drinking/drugs, etc. after my official exit. To this day, I have no tattoos, nor do I drink (not even occasionally), and I have a very happy, healthy monogamous marriage with the love of my life.

[changed]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am sorry to hear that.  I hope there is a way for reconciliation.

Not sure what this means.  

I don't understand.  You are faulting the Church for "NOT put[ting] him in jail?"  How would that work?

And how is it that the other HP is not in jail?

Again, I don't understand.  What is it that you expected the Church to do that it did not do?

That is unfortunate.

On the one had, some members deeply resent "the Church" being too involved in the lives of its members (as evidenced by, for example, objections to bishops receiving confessions of misconduct, objections to the Church disciplining Sam Young, etc.).  And yet the Church is also faulted for not being involved enough in the lives of its members (such as your very strange complaint that the Church "did NOT put him {a high priest} in jail").

D&C 134:10 merits some attention here:

Personally, I am grateful that the Church disclaims secular authority, and otherwise limits its ability to discipline members.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Members believe in following the laws of the land, right?  If you are in America there are mandated reporting laws:
https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/laws-policies/statutes/manda/

I would think the church would fall under the same laws as counselors, social workers, and others who deal with children. 

If someone comes into a bishop's office and tells them they have been abused... or someone "repents" of molesting or otherwise illegal activity - legal actions do need to be taken.

For evil to prevail, is for good people to do nothing.

If you do not put these insane / mentally ill / physically disturbed - and that is what this is - people in jail, you are contributing to the abuse of future victims.  

The church did not take steps to protect victims.  Did not remove people from callings.  Did not do anything.

 

Edited September 24, 2018 by changed

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I personally don't see the point in resigning. I think the church just puts the resigned on a different list.

I think resignation as a form of protest may indicate a fundamental disconnect regarding what the Church claims to be, and what membership in it means. 

19 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Perhaps it serves as a minor form of protest to counter how the church excommunicates/disciplines disagreeing "apostates?" It's like saying I break up with you prior to you breaking up with me. However, it can serve a political purpose as in Mr. Runnells' case.

A "form of protest."

A "political purpose."

These are illuminating observations.  

In the end, I guess it depends on how you think of the Church.  If you think of it as akin to some sort of political construct or business entity, where you are a voter or a stockholder, and where the leadership is answerable to you, and where you are supposed to publicly criticize and speak against political candidates or business decisions you don't like, then I think you'll end up on the periphery of the Church, and perhaps even out of it.  I've seen this pattern many times.  Dallin H. Oaks wrote an excellent article about this in 1987.  Here's a link.

On the other hand, if you approach the Church based on what it claims to be, then that seems much more workable, IMO.  The hostile/adversarial elements in the preceding paragraph are hopefully absent, or else replaced with perspectives more comparable to an extended family or tight-knit, we're-all-in-this-together community.  That community also houses sacred truths and authority and ordinances that will affect our lives and our families now and after we pass on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Most of that has been implemented for years already. About the only thing missing is the online training, but even there quite a few have had that due to scouting requirements. I do think it'd be useful to have more generally. The Bishop one on one meetings are the one exception but that's already been changed but I think is a bit more complicated for various reasons.

 

 

 

1- Windows in every door  - not in my ward, certainly

2- 2 deep leadership in every class/activity with children/youth 18 and under  - not really enforced in my ward. Certainly not in bishop's interviews. And not if one of the teachers doesn't show up.

3- no one-on-one pastor/youth interactions  - we're still doing that

4- EVERY person in the congregation who teaches a class or group or even substitutes must first complete a 2 hour online or in person youth protection training.  - we haven't done this

 

Rather than most of this having been implemented, I'd say most of it hasn't been implemented.