Sam Young Lost His Appeal

[Steve-o]

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I don't see how it does any harm in this case, and could help clear up confusion.  I could paraphrase what is written, but what is written says things so much better than I could paraphrase.

It removes the possibility of misunderstanding. I'm glad that piece of the handbook was posted because it's clear. If you summarized it I would have to wonder how much was accurate and how much was your opinion. Would the church really be upset about posting part of the handbook? I don't think they would try to silence anyone because of copyright. I think they would want people to know. 

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I don't see how it does any harm in this case, and could help clear up confusion.  I could paraphrase what is written, but what is written says things so much better than I could paraphrase.

I already did paraphrase it but you had to cheapen my efforts by taking the easy way out. I am afraid I have to challenge you to a duel to restore my honor. Do you want choice of venue or choice of weapon?

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

This is great. The actual written appeal is forwarded on.

It appears then, that the first presidency has both the record kept by stake leadership and the perspective of the individual to consider when they review an appeal. 

Yes.  That has long been the case.

When Kate Kelly submitted her appeal, she included a supporting letter from her then-husband, Neil Ransom, and also a letter/brief written on her behalf by Nadine Hansen, a fellow supporter and attorney.  See here.

Ransom's letter was quite caustic.  Hansen's brief, while more temperate, was fairly legalistic.  I don't mind that, actually (I'm a lawyer, after all), but such things can come across as abrasive.

And, lest we forget, she even threatened to sue the Church over her excommunication.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Steve-o said:

It removes the possibility of misunderstanding. I'm glad that piece of the handbook was posted because it's clear. If you summarized it I would have to wonder how much was accurate and how much was your opinion. Would the church really be upset about posting part of the handbook? I don't think they would try to silence anyone because of copyright. I think they would want people to know. 

They make it clear they do not care about Handbook 2 as every member can see it. With Handbook 1 they restrict access to members whose callings require it. They clearly do not want people to know.

6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I'll need to remember to stop quoting the Book of Mormon here as well.

They do get upset if you try and post the sealed portion.

[ksfisher]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I already did paraphrase it but you had to cheapen my efforts by taking the easy way out. I am afraid I have to challenge you to a duel to restore my honor. Do you want choice of venue or choice of weapon?

The choice of weapons is your, sir. 

The venue I choose is R'lyeh.

You will be hearing from my second.

Edited November 13, 2018 by ksfisher

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

The choice of weapons is your Sir. 

The venue I choose is R'lyeh.

You will be hearing from my second.

As you have clearly allied with the vile demon Cthulhu the weapon shall be ICBMs. The only winning move is to fire everything at once.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

They make it clear they do not care about Handbook 2 as every member can see it. With Handbook 1 they restrict access to members whose callings require it. They clearly do not want people to know.

They don't discourage people from asking leaders to read it, so I think it is less not wanting people to know and more wanting to limit debates over the language/nuances and secondguessing of leaders.  Not sure that works in this day and age of internet resources.

Edited November 13, 2018 by Calm

[The Nehor]

20 minutes ago, Steve-o said:

I agree. In person would be good but I think telling him in person and giving him a letter would be best. Isn't that what they usually do in a disciplinary council? I thought they told the person and then gave them a letter so I thought they would do the same for the appeal. I think it matters who the messenger is. If Sam Young had a conflict or personal disagreement with how the Stake President handled the disciplinary council and appealed the Stake President's decision to the first presidency I don't think the Stake President would be the best person to go back to Sam Young and tell him the appeal was denied. Both Sam Young and the Stake President could behave badly or misinterpret things. It's at least possible when there has been conflict between the two. It's kind of like if I had a dispute with my boss. I could make a complaint to my bosses boss or to human resources. I would expect to hear back from them and it would be weird if they gave the decision about my dispute to my boss to tell me. It feels wrong.

The Bishop or Stake President is not an opposing party in the council. They are not the prosecution. They are the judge.

[Steve-o]

18 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The Bishop or Stake President is not an opposing party in the council. They are not the prosecution. They are the judge.

Are you sure? It seems like the Stake President does both, especially in a case when a person doesn't confess and doesn't agree with the council being held. The Stake President calls the council. The stake president makes the case for why the council is held by making the accusation. Or does he assign someone else to do it? I don't remember. In a case like Sam Youngs the stake president made the accusation of apostasy, convened the council, made the case for apostasy, and then made the judgement. It seems like the stake president wears many hats in a disputed disciplinary council. But whether I'm right or not doesn't matter. What matters is how Sam Young sees it. I think it is reasonable for Sam Young to view the stake president as the opposition. I don't remember if Sam Young made any specific statements about the stake president or how he handled the council so I could be wrong about that too. I just think it opens the potential for misunderstanding because I can understand why someone like Sam Young could have hard feelings against the stake president and also how the stake president could have hard feelings against sam young.

[SouthernMo]

26 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The Bishop or Stake President is not an opposing party in the council. They are not the prosecution. They are the judge.

Not sure about this.  They certainly are the judges, but it appears that if we are going to make a comparison to the American judicial system, they are also the prosecution (in most cases).

[LoudmouthMormon]

Quote

The Houston stake president, a regional lay leader in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, told Young of his appeal’s outcome Sunday while standing in a hallway at the church he once attended.

Attention social activists.  Attention practicers of various tactics about how to force change by forcing top leadership to respond to your issue, thus using the target organization as a way to increase the spread of your message.   Attention podium seekers who want captive audiences who have to listen to you say your piece.  Attention lawsuit filers who seek media attention as a way of spreading your agenda.  Attention General Conference protesters who shout "opposed" because it can be heard worldwide.

You don't go higher than the Stake President.  The end.  

Edited November 13, 2018 by LoudmouthMormon

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, Steve-o said:

Are you sure? It seems like the Stake President does both, especially in a case when a person doesn't confess and doesn't agree with the council being held. The Stake President calls the council. The stake president makes the case for why the council is held by making the accusation. Or does he assign someone else to do it? I don't remember. In a case like Sam Youngs the stake president made the accusation of apostasy, convened the council, made the case for apostasy, and then made the judgement. It seems like the stake president wears many hats in a disputed disciplinary council. But whether I'm right or not doesn't matter. What matters is how Sam Young sees it. I think it is reasonable for Sam Young to view the stake president as the opposition. I don't remember if Sam Young made any specific statements about the stake president or how he handled the council so I could be wrong about that too. I just think it opens the potential for misunderstanding because I can understand why someone like Sam Young could have hard feelings against the stake president and also how the stake president could have hard feelings against sam young.

I don’t think how Sam Young sees it matters much at all.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

if we are going to make a comparison to the American judicial system...

And that is where it goes fundamentally wrong and confuses everyone....

[SouthernMo]

8 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Attention social activists.  Attention practicers of various tactics about how to force change by forcing top leadership to respond to your issue, thus using the target organization as a way to increase the spread of your message.   Attention podium seekers who want captive audiences who have to listen to you say your piece.  Attention lawsuit filers who seek media attention as a way of spreading your agenda.  Attention General Conference protesters who shout "opposed" because it can be heard worldwide.

You don't go higher than the Stake President.  The end.  

What do you mean?  Are you saying it’s impossible, not allowed, it’s ineffective?  Or does it bother you? What?

[SouthernMo]

Just now, Calm said:

And that is where it goes fundamentally wrong and confuses everyone....

Agreed.  

[Steve-o]

27 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Attention social activists.  Attention practicers of various tactics about how to force change by forcing top leadership to respond to your issue, thus using the target organization as a way to increase the spread of your message.   Attention podium seekers who want captive audiences who have to listen to you say your piece.  Attention lawsuit filers who seek media attention as a way of spreading your agenda.  Attention General Conference protesters who shout "opposed" because it can be heard worldwide.

You don't go higher than the Stake President.  The end.  

Is the purpose of the policy to keep people in their place, far away from church leaders? You're describing a very comfortable cushion between the people of the church and the top leaders of the church. That doesn't sound like a very healthy relationship but you seem to be very much in favor of that kind of separation. I can't understand why. Can you tell me why it is a good thing that average members will never have access to their top leaders?

Edited November 13, 2018 by Steve-o

[SouthernMo]

1 hour ago, Steve-o said:

Is the purpose of the policy to keep people in their place, far away from church leaders? You're describing a very comfortable cushion between the people of the church and the top leaders of the church. That doesn't sound like a very healthy relationship but you seem to be very much in favor of that kind of separation. I can't understand why. Can you tell me why it is a good thing that average members will never have access to their top leaders?

Time constraints of general leaders do need to be considered. Also, the importance of empowering and trusting local leaders is a worthy reason.

But, a lack of access to the general leadership - whether perceived or real - can foster divisive mistrust among the local lay membership. 

Edited November 13, 2018 by SouthernMo

[The Nehor]

33 minutes ago, Steve-o said:

Is the purpose of the policy to keep people in their place, far away from church leaders? You're describing a very comfortable cushion between the people of the church and the top leaders of the church. That doesn't sound like a very healthy relationship but you seem to be very much in favor of that kind of separation. I can't understand why. Can you tell me why it is a good thing that average members will never have access to their top leaders?

Moses tried that approach. It did not work very well.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I have confidence that the Office of the First Presidency is capable of writing a letter that confirms the original decision while also expressing a hope that the former member return to the fold. It doesn't seem that complicated.

If the church had a different SOP for other appeals but then communicated through Sam through an intermediary, in contradiction to the normal SOP, then I think you might have a point. But as Eric Hawkins stated, this is the usual process for communicating an appeal. Again, it seems like a letter would be a more careful way to convey the result of the appeal, not a conversation in a hallway. If anything, I think this seems more like the 1st Presidency keeping it's distance so they aren't sullied by the uncomeliness of excommunications. I think they'd rather have the SP take the heat than bear it themselves.

The SP was an integral part of the accusation, prosecution, judgement of the disciplinary council. Sending it back to the SP to communicate shows a lack of respect to the person appealing and further burns the bridge between the former member and the SP, who would also be an integral part of the former member returning to the church. If they must communicate verbally, or in person in lieu of a letter, why not have someone else convey the message. Why not have the Area Authority convey the message?

I expected the appeal to be denied. No surprise there. But I'm shocked by the rudeness of how the action was communicated: in a hallway, verbally, from the man who X'd Sam Young. Not a very compassionate procedure.

The LDS Church has  no code of civil procedure in such matters.  So, when encountering a Judas, it might be best to keep everything as uncomplicated as possible.  Let him hang himself on his own petard.

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

Time constraints of general leaders do need to be considered. Also, the importance of empowering and trusting local leaders is a worthy reason.

But, a lack of access to the general leadership - whether perceived or real - can foster divisive mistrust among the local lay membership. 

I know the histories and characters of the general authorities (a few personally) and know it is a good bet to trust them to lead righteously.
And there are enough of them to prevent one of them, even the president, from doing something wrong. Divisive mistrust happens when members become weak in their testimonies.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Steve-o said:

Is the purpose of the policy to keep people in their place, far away from church leaders? You're describing a very comfortable cushion between the people of the church and the top leaders of the church. That doesn't sound like a very healthy relationship but you seem to be very much in favor of that kind of separation. I can't understand why. Can you tell me why it is a good thing that average members will never have access to their top leaders?

It trains them in relying upon the Spirit. They should not be that personally and individually dependent; it is unhealthy and unchristlike for all involved.

Those who do not rely upon the Spirit, or are not trained in that relationship, of course turn to worldly and secular expectations and solutions. For that reason we see so many misapplied references to civil proceedings, transparency, consent, boundary maintenance, branding, etc. etc. etc. in describing how the Church should be going about her business. They simply don't know what they are talking about, whether they get it from a podcast or blog or from extremely limited exposure to how the Church operates.

Edited November 14, 2018 by CV75

[LoudmouthMormon]

18 hours ago, Steve-o said:

Can you tell me why it is a good thing that average members will never have access to their top leaders?

I'd suggest you read my list of people.   Social activists, people trying to force change, podium seekers who want captive audiences, lawsuit filers who seek media attention, and General Conference protesters are not "average members".  They are agenda-pushing agitators, using tactics taught by revolutionaries and anarchists*, and the church is responding accordingly.  They have access to church leadership - through their Stake Presidents.  They don't get to force access as a way of enlarging their message.  

 

 

* No really, I'm not exaggerating.  I'm facebook arguing buddies with one of the authors of the 1990's era Anarchist Faq.  We talk social change strategies on occasion.  Indeed, the tactics he tries to employ are the same ones used by my list of people above.

Edited November 14, 2018 by LoudmouthMormon

[ksfisher]

18 hours ago, Steve-o said:

Is the purpose of the policy to keep people in their place, far away from church leaders? You're describing a very comfortable cushion between the people of the church and the top leaders of the church. That doesn't sound like a very healthy relationship but you seem to be very much in favor of that kind of separation. I can't understand why. Can you tell me why it is a good thing that average members will never have access to their top leaders?

With a membership of over 15 million it would prove impossible for the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, even with the assistance of the Seventy, to personally attend to the needs of every member.  Just as a bishop needs to rely on ministering brother and sisters to attend to the needs of ward members, the general authorities need the assistance of local leaders.

[The Nehor]

17 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I'd suggest you read my list of people.   Social activists, people trying to force change, podium seekers who want captive audiences, lawsuit filers who seek media attention, and General Conference protesters are not "average members".  They are agenda-pushing agitators, using tactics taught by revolutionaries and anarchists*, and the church is responding accordingly.  They have access to church leadership - through their Stake Presidents.  They don't get to force access as a way of enlarging their message.  

 

 

* No really, I'm not exaggerating.  I'm facebook arguing buddies with one of the authors of the 1990's era Anarchist Faq.  We talk social change strategies on occasion.  Indeed, the tactics he tries to employ are the same ones used by my list of people above.

This is also true. I know in some cases (not all) when Apostles and Seventies are traveling in an area they ask to visit members who the local leadership think could use a visit from a General Authority. I have an Uncle who was reactivated because a Seventy showed up at his door one day. They want to spend some time with ordinary members. The problem is if you let the members dictate the terms as to who they meet they will be deluged and their time completely taken by the same people who hound the Bishop for an interview every other week for things of little consequence.

[smac97]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

And that is where it goes fundamentally wrong and confuses everyone....

I think the Church's disciplinary processes only takes very broad cues and concepts from the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence, such as:

• Presumption of Innocence / Burden of Proof
• Consideration of Evidence
• Right of Accused to Question Witnesses
• (De Minimis) Representation for the Person under Discipline
• Right to Appeal

Most of these are not in play in most disciplinary proceedings, as the facts are usually not in dispute, the person under discipline has confessed, there is no need to present evidence/witnesses, there is no appeal, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac