My first and only Sam Young resignations*

[Danzo]

16 minutes ago, ERMD said:

All youth (YM/YW) leaders in our area (Texas) are required to take youth protection training.  A question I have is, is there evidence this does any good?  Requiring it be done looks good, and may or may not decrease the liability of the organization (I doubt it), but does it really help?  I can anticipate the "if it only prevents one case, then it's worth it" responses, but is there evidence of the one case?  

I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, but I work in an evidence-based world.

No worries as long as there are good intentions, it should be enough.  One would expect the overall child abuse rate to have gone down in the last few years with all of this two deep leadership and other CYA.

I keep waiting for the new reports showing that due to the youth protection procedures in place in all of these organizations, that there is finally a drop in children being abused.

 

 

[mnn727]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

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. 

Sounds like you don't have a functioning Stake Presidency.

[mnn727]

3 hours ago, changed said:

 

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.

 

Yet its been Church policy for years that if and abuse is reported, that the Bishop/Stake President MUST call the Legal department of the Church. Sounds to me like a local failure rather than a Church failure.

[Avatar4321]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

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. 

That would worry me a little ErinThat would worry me a little Erin

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

I would think that her comments are more relevant than her body art. Has she written anything that makes you assume the following?

There was a little more to it when she requested no contact. She did explain a couple of things, but not in depth, and she didn't leave that door open. 

Generally, most people who are "good" with the Church and Church culture don't go on a piercing and tattooing spree. You are correct that I am extrapolating some things based on her request for no contact, followed immediately by a subsequent body art explosion. 

Surely not everybody who has resigned recently used the Sam Young situation as a factor. Coincidental things do happen, and since many members are resigning (I won't use the word droves) you shouldn't assume that a recent situation was a factor in the one that was communicated to you.

You are correct that my assumption may be wrong. Still, the timing of Sam's protest, the increase in resignations with the law firm, and then a letter two weeks later stating that they had resigned with law firm help lead me to believe that the Sam young publicity was a factor. You are correct that it may be 100% coincidental. 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, ERMD said:

All youth (YM/YW) leaders in our area (Texas) are required to take youth protection training.  A question I have is, is there evidence this does any good?  Requiring it be done looks good, and may or may not decrease the liability of the organization (I doubt it), but does it really help?  I can anticipate the "if it only prevents one case, then it's worth it" responses, but is there evidence of the one case?  

I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, but I work in an evidence-based world.

That's a great question. It's hard to imagine how greater awareness of risks wouldn't do good. It's hard to imagine how implementation of sound protection policies, like 2 deep leadership & scoutmasters sleeping in a different tent, don't help. But I can imagine it would be difficult to document what doesn't happen because of youth protection training and policies. I don't know what kinds of evidence exists for this. I imagine it's out there but I can't direct you to it. I'd be interested in seeing it as well.

I'm curious about what training your YW leaders take. Do they also register with BSA and take their training as if they were doing it for scouts, but then apply it to YW? Or do they do a different training? If so, what is it? Also, do primary workers take youth protection training in your area? It sounds like you have a proactive stake leadership, which sounds great. I'm curious how they are implementing that stake policy.

[Garden Girl]

In my ward, only the Bishop's office does not have a window... all other doors have had windows installed...

GG

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

Surely not everybody who has resigned recently used the Sam Young situation as a factor. Coincidental things do happen, and since many members are resigning (I won't use the word droves) you shouldn't assume that a recent situation was a factor in the one that was comunicated to you.

I think it's that the couple is using a law firm to resign that led Rongo to assume that it has something to do with Sam Young.  Right now there is a law firm connected to resignations stemming from Sam Young stuff offering to handle resignations from the church.

[stemelbow]

53 minutes ago, rongo said:

There was a little more to it when she requested no contact. She did explain a couple of things, but not in depth, and she didn't leave that door open. 

Generally, most people who are "good" with the Church and Church culture don't go on a piercing and tattooing spree. You are correct that I am extrapolating some things based on her request for no contact, followed immediately by a subsequent body art explosion. 

 

 

You are correct that my assumption may be wrong. Still, the timing of Sam's protest, the increase in resignations with the law firm, and then a letter two weeks later stating that they had resigned with law firm help lead me to believe that the Sam young publicity was a factor. You are correct that it may be 100% coincidental. 

She likely will not care but I feel bad she's looked at with such suspicion.  I wouldn't doubt though, that in her and her families trek out of the Church there were plenty of factors playing into their decisions as steps were taken.  Sounds quite obvious people peering out the windows at them from within the building as they travel their course, are going to assume things about them that simply are not.  I think it's a weird expectation to think some one event is going to be the only factor for anyone who leaves the church.  It's often quite a journey.  

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, ERMD said:

All youth (YM/YW) leaders in our area (Texas) are required to take youth protection training.  A question I have is, is there evidence this does any good?  Requiring it be done looks good, and may or may not decrease the liability of the organization (I doubt it), but does it really help?  I can anticipate the "if it only prevents one case, then it's worth it" responses, but is there evidence of the one case?  

I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, but I work in an evidence-based world.

I would love to see a study actually addressing this question.  To be very truthful: good predators can find their way around background checks and "two deep" protection.  I know that first hand.   

Unfortunately, I don't know if it's possible for such a study to exist.  

You could have a study saying "there's less reported incidents of abuse"- which could be because 1) less false reports, 2) less true reports because victims have more to fight against, and/or 3) honestly less abuse happening.  And there's no way to untangle those three possible causes.  

Alternatively you could have a study which says these protection have no effect.  Which could be because 1) there's honestly no effect, and/or 2) another screwing in what's reported versus not. 

[Maestrophil]

7 hours 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.  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.  

I don't want to like this quote because I don't want to imply I am happy about it - but I wanted to comment and say I am sorry for your experiences and that they led you to feel the need to leave.  😞

[Walden]

4 hours ago, why me said:

I think that you should consider yourself fortunate to have had the lds church in your and also that the lds church gave you and your family a wonderful value structure to still grasp on to. Many former members do keep the lds values in their life. Maybe at times one must give credit where credit is do.

There was good and bad that I learned as a member of the church; I try to embrace the good and distance myself from the bad. It is much how I approach most experiences in life.

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, rongo said:

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. 

I am just curious about what the hangup is?

It doesn't seem that hard to me- what am I missing?   Will no one accept the call?  That's about the only thing I can imagine at the moment.....?

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, rongo said:

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." 

In my experience the computer system is really..... complex and......difficult..... to navigate when it comes to these changes.

My lds tools does not know my calling and thinks I work for the church and am an employee.  I have never been an employee!

I still use google to get answers on LDS dot org for talks etc- I am not too fond of the search functions though I am notoriously dense about how to use them.  But google just works.  Type in a few words, and "lds" to the inquiry and there it is in seconds!  No deciding what category its in - general conference or topics or lessons or scriptures- just type the keywords and you are there.

Maybe we need some programmers who are not students at BYU and actually pay them real money? 

(I have no basis for that last guess- just that the dang thang don't work!!    )

[mfbukowski]

10 hours 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 typically actually takes longer for the FP to do the approvals, typically.  The issue is usually more often when it was submitted.  If the old bishop left unexpectedly it can easily taken longer- or if there is another problem - as there seems to be here.

I mean sometime the Danites don't have the time to go out to the guys house and sniff around.... 

 

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, rongo said:

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. 

Wow that is really bad.  You gotta get those reinstatements going while the iron is hot and you have momentum in your favor.

It's like someone apologizing and your answer is "well maybe I will forgive you, maybe not".... I mean how long do you care what the answer is?  Life goes on either in the church or out and in is better!

[Tacenda]

10 hours 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.

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.

Yes, they indeed do, to the bold. Not to derail, but I really had no idea the harm I may have put my children in. If I had, who knows, my family might not have gone all those years. I know that one of my children was mentally abused by the PH and their constant interviews to get him to go on a mission. He never told me, I had no idea. Now he is very anti. This from a son that worked so hard on his Primary lessons as a co-teacher, prior to being able to serve a mission.

Edited September 25, 2018 by Tacenda

[sunstoned]

13 hours ago, Exiled said:

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.

I looked at it as a clean break.  After November 2015, there we some who just didn't want to be associated with the church anymore.  

[Rain]

11 hours ago, bluebell said:

Just wanted to clarify that the window is situated where you can see the bishop, but you can't see who he's speaking to.

I think that would be good. Ours does not have a window. The way everything is situated though I'm not sure where you could put the widow to only get the bishop. 

10 hours ago, ERMD said:

All youth (YM/YW) leaders in our area (Texas) are required to take youth protection training.  A question I have is, is there evidence this does any good?  Requiring it be done looks good, and may or may not decrease the liability of the organization (I doubt it), but does it really help?  I can anticipate the "if it only prevents one case, then it's worth it" responses, but is there evidence of the one case?  

I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, but I work in an evidence-based world.

It may help. It drives me bonkers though trying to follow it sometimes since I pay more attention to it more than most in our cub scouts. I am much more diligent in following the rules since I had the training and agreed to it. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

11 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

I would love to see a study actually addressing this question.  To be very truthful: good predators can find their way around background checks and "two deep" protection.  I know that first hand.   

I would love to see this too. I'm happy to be corrected, but there seem to be no data that support the efficacy of routine background checks. I know this seems counter-intuitive, but many things are. All jurisdictions where I live now have mandatory child-safe checks for literally every person who works with kids, either professionally or in a volunteer capacity, and have had so for six or seven years, some longer. I've checked. We have zero data on how this is working ... or even if it's working. Ironically, the one man in our stake who was caught grooming a minor (who turned out to be an undercover police officer in another nation) and was subsequently excommunicated was working for our national Department of Education at the time ... and had been through intensive background checks.

 

Edited September 25, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[why me]

7 hours ago, Walden said:

There was good and bad that I learned as a member of the church; I try to embrace the good and distance myself from the bad. It is much how I approach most experiences in life.

But on the other hand, the good has saved many lives: from cancer, from alcoholism, drugs etc. And it has kept many people away from the darker side of life. If more people where mormons, the world would be a different place, a much more healthy place to be. So whatever the negatives may be, it cannot compare to the good. Lets hope that even exmembers can be thankful for the good.

[Abulafia]

6 hours ago, why me said:

But on the other hand, the good has saved many lives: from cancer, from alcoholism, drugs etc. And it has kept many people away from the darker side of life. If more people where mormons, the world would be a different place, a much more healthy place to be. So whatever the negatives may be, it cannot compare to the good. Lets hope that even exmembers can be thankful for the good.

Wow. How offensive is that. My best friend, tbm as they come, just died at 56 from cancer, leaving a 15 year old daughter behind.  Being active doesn't save you from that horrible disease. Nor does it save you from depression, divorce or other life threatening illnesses.

[hope_for_things]

23 hours 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. 

The timing could be just a coincidence, unless you saw some facebook postings that indicated they were supportive of Sam Young and some resignation event, I wouldn't assume that was the catalyst.  Could just be a coincidence.

I don't see them leaving as sad, it seems like they had left already a long time ago.  The sad things are that the church doesn't serve broader spectrum of people in a way that actually lets people feel authentic and appreciated for their differences.  These may be very good people that because of some fault of our culture felt marginalized and unwelcome.  The sadness for me is that so many people feel pushed out of their faith community because of flaws inherent in that community.  

I'm in favor of a much bigger tent Mormonism.  I'm not suggesting that this tent will fit everyone and everything, but it certainly could do better than it has done historically and is doing today.  

[Tacenda]

18 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

In my ward, only the Bishop's office does not have a window... all other doors have had windows installed...

GG

😦 Maybe that's to allow people that need to confess privacy? But dangerous if we have a bad bishop in there with youth.

Edited September 25, 2018 by Tacenda

[hope_for_things]

22 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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 kind of have this dream/hope that we could gather all the people who've been Mormon at some point in their life, and get them meeting together again, interacting and sharing without judgement, and just being a part of something.  A place where orthodox and unorthodox are all accepted and appreciated for who they are without judgment.  Where people could share talents and organize events to help the broader community.  Where we could rally around some shared principles/values but without all the authoritarianism.  

That is my hope.  Its a vision for a future that I don't realistically know how it could happen without some really amazing leaders breaking from the bad traditions and articulating the vision in a really powerful way.