Sam Young Lost His Appeal

[juliann]

I can't guess what response mode would have been better, but I think making the SP the mouthpiece is quite understandable in Mormonland. Also, they guy is excommunicated. He is not a member anymore so this should not be treated as the First Pres ignoring a church member. All I will ever remember Young for is putting out those chairs in front of the Offices and demanding apostles come sit in them for the cameras. I think it might be asking too much to expect them to sit every time he demands something and this response is consistent with their response to his chair drama.  

[Calm]

For those saying it was rude for the Stake Pres to talk to Young in the hallway, that was not his first choice. Meeting at church was Young's choice.  Nor was it stuck in between meetings or crowded.  It was the equivalent of a private room according to Young.  And the time was set aside solely for the purpose of meeting with Young as the SP came to the building for the meeting and then left after he believed it needed to end.  The only thing missing was sitting down to talk.  There is no way to know if that wasn't done because Young gave off signals interpreted by the SP that he wanted the meeting to be quick (perhaps the wedding planning was uppermost in the SP's mind) or informal or something else.  Maybe the SP just feels more comfortable talking on his feet (that was my dad, I don't remember any serious conversation about my life where he was sitting down).  Maybe he thought Young would feel less constrained without a desk between them or a door shut.  Maybe the conversation just naturally developed from the moment of greeting so it didn't occur to the SP to move into an office, there being no need to do so for privacy since there was no one to overhear.

Quote

Around 2pm today,  I received a call from the stake executive secretary.  He informed me that the stake president would like to come by and visit right away.   My home was a-swirl in wedding preparations.  So, we decided to meet in the church at 4:15.

I arrived at 4:00.  No one there.  I sat on the couch facing the outside door where the stake president makes his entrances.

At 4:15, the stake president and my former bishop made their timely appearance.  I stood.  We shook hands.  The stake president gave me a hug.  About one minute of pleasantries. Then, as we stood in the hallway, the following interchange ensued .

 

Edited November 15, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

For those saying it was rude for the Stake Pres to talk to Young in the hallway, that was not his first choice. Meeting at church was Young's choice.  Nor was it in between meetings or crowded.  It was the equivalent of a private room according to Young.  The only thing missing was sitting down to talk.  There is no way to know if that wasn't done because Young gave off signals interpreted by the SP that he wanted the meeting to be quick (perhaps the wedding planning was uppermost in the SP's mind) or informal or something else.  Maybe the SP just feels more comfortable talking on his feet (that was my dad, I don't remember any serious conversation about my life where he was sitting down).  Maybe he thought Young would feel less constrained without a desk between them or a door shut.  Maybe the conversation just naturally developed from the moment of greeting so it didn't occur to the SP to move into an office, there being no need to do so for privacy since there was no one to overhear.

 

It also appears that Sam Young was recording the whole thing.  Hard to blame the stake president for wanting to be extremely careful with what he says, particularly given Mr. Young's appalling rhetoric and characterizations of others.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It also appears that Sam Young was recording the whole thing.  

It is hard to tell if he was reconstructing it or actually recording it.  The details provided do imply it was recorded.

Quote

Hard to blame the stake president for wanting to be extremely careful with what he says, particularly given Mr. Young's appalling rhetoric and characterizations of others.

The use of "Zombie" in his title says a lot, imo.

[Hamba Tuhan]

People who've demonstrated, repeatedly, that they're happy to record private conversations and publish them to the whole world should not be surprised when they find that people are curt and formal with them.  I certainly would be.

Edited November 14, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is hard to tell if he was reconstructing it or actually recording it.  The details provided do imply it was recorded.

He provides extensive verbatim quotes.  And he doesn't present the quotes as paraphrases or a summary.  He says "Then, as we stood in the hallway, the following interchange ensued..."

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

The use of "Zombie" in his title says a lot, imo.

From his article:

His description of his stake president:

• "I now have a clear picture that the LDS church is capable of turning a good man into a mindless zombie.  A will-less robot following instructions from his Mormon masters."
• "No compassion.  No friendship.  No outreach.  Distant and detached.  Anxious to flee the presence of the evil excommunicated apostate.  Nothing Christ-like whatsoever."

And his descriptions of the First Presidency:

• "I have little respect for the 1st Presidency and apostles.  They are cowards."
• "None of the general authorities have ever had the guts to come out of their protective holes and meet with me.  No apostle has been willing to descend from their ivory tower and meet with their vast array victims."
• "{T}he vaunted prophets show how spineless they are..."
• "In their chicken-hearted, opulent, arrogance they continue to harm our children!!!"

Holy cow.  Who on earth would want to attempt a conversation with such a person?

Thanks,

-Smac

d

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

People who've demonstrated, repeatedly, that they're happy to record private conversations and publish them to the whole world should not be surprised when they find that people are curt and formal with them.  I certainly would be.

The SP wasn't curt or formal, imo, until Young started asking for stuff and refusing to take "no" for an answer.  When someone keeps pushing it makes sense to become brief and to the point, imo, and eventually walk away.

I can understand why Young wanted the records.  I am not faulting him for attempting to get them or even being pushy about it.  But that makes the SP's response appropriate, imo, and not weird or rude, since in his view it was inappropriate to give Young the records.

Edited November 15, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Who on earth would want to attempt a conversation with such a person?

And yet he tried.  He arranged to have an interview and wanted to do it in the comfort of Young's home, he adapted to Young's requests, arrived respectfully on time, greeted him with a handshake and hug.  He could have just sent him an email or told him over the phone.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

When someone keeps pushing it makes sense to become brief and to the point, imo, and eventually walk away.

Indeed. I actually received an email yesterday from our opposition leader's chief of staff, telling us that the parliament's Workplace Safety Committee had recognised the ongoing risk posed to staff through contact with 'agitated and sometimes irrational and aggressive members of the public'; therefore, the committee is offering a full day of training on how to 'de-escalate' such a situation.

Based on personal experience, agitated members of the public are nearly always going to misread and misrepresent such attempts at de-escalation.

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Who on earth would want to attempt a conversation with such a person?

And yet he tried.  He arranged to have an interview and wanted to do it in the comfort of Young's home, he adapted to Young's requests, arrived respectfully on time, greeted him with a handshake and hug.  He could have just sent him an email or told him over the phone.

Yep.  Kudos, and sympathies, to the stake president who has put up with the abusive and manipulative behavior of Sam Young.

-Smac

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

He provides extensive verbatim quotes.  And he doesn't present the quotes as paraphrases or a summary.  He says "Then, as we stood in the hallway, the following interchange ensued..."

From his article:

His description of his stake president:

• "I now have a clear picture that the LDS church is capable of turning a good man into a mindless zombie.  A will-less robot following instructions from his Mormon masters."
• "No compassion.  No friendship.  No outreach.  Distant and detached.  Anxious to flee the presence of the evil excommunicated apostate.  Nothing Christ-like whatsoever."

And his descriptions of the First Presidency:

• "I have little respect for the 1st Presidency and apostles.  They are cowards."
• "None of the general authorities have ever had the guts to come out of their protective holes and meet with me.  No apostle has been willing to descend from their ivory tower and meet with their vast array victims."
• "{T}he vaunted prophets show how spineless they are..."
• "In their chicken-hearted, opulent, arrogance they continue to harm our children!!!"

Holy cow.  Who on earth would want to attempt a conversation with such a person?

Thanks,

-Smac

d

So The stake president gave him a hug before they started talking, but he was a compassionless zombie?

Edited November 15, 2018 by Avatar4321
Spelling

[JAHS]

I had a short conversation with him on his blog today:

Joel
November 14, 2018 at 5:59 pm
Definition of apostasy which is a reason for church discipline:
“Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.”

“I have little respect for the 1st Presidency and apostles. They are cowards.”
“the vaunted prophets show how spineless they are”
“In their chicken-hearted, opulent, arrogance ”

Can you honestly say that saying such things along with your clearly open, deliberate and public actions do not qualify for the conditions of apostasy?

Sam Young
November 14, 2018 at 6:05 pm
I am no longer a member. When I was, I was not opposing the church or it’s leaders. I was speaking out about a policy. One policy. Not doctrine. Not theology. Not against the church. For the church. For making it better. If it’s forbidden to oppose a policy without being kicked out, something is rotten. Especially if that policy is harming our kids.

Joel
November 14, 2018 at 6:15 pm
But it’s the church leaders who make the policies, so if you openly oppose the policy you are openly opposing them and the church. I understand your reasons for doing this but it’s the way you have gone about doing it that has caused this excommunication to happen.

Sam Young
November 14, 2018 at 6:51 pm
Your are correct. I basically tried every way I could think of. Started by talking to bishop and stake president. Dead end after 1 1/2 years. Wrote letters to apostles. Dead end. Next was petition. Then collecting stories.
Then the march to deliver the stories. Then the hunger strike to raise awareness. The excommunication actually helped raise awareness big time. As a result, many parents and bishops both have been alerted to the dangers of the Mormon interview policy. Many have taken action on their own. I really wish that the apostles had made the change during my firs 2 years of encouraging change. But, I was not willing to wait as children continue to be in harms way.

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

So the stake president gave him a hug before they started talking, but he was a compassionless zombie?

 Zombie hugs are not great as a rule ...

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I had a short conversation with him on his blog today:

Joel
November 14, 2018 at 5:59 pm
Definition of apostasy which is a reason for church discipline:
“Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.”

“I have little respect for the 1st Presidency and apostles. They are cowards.”
“the vaunted prophets show how spineless they are”
“In their chicken-hearted, opulent, arrogance ”

Can you honestly say that saying such things along with your clearly open, deliberate and public actions do not qualify for the conditions of apostasy?

Sam Young
November 14, 2018 at 6:05 pm
I am no longer a member. When I was, I was not opposing the church or it’s leaders. I was speaking out about a policy. One policy. Not doctrine. Not theology. Not against the church. For the church. For making it better. If it’s forbidden to oppose a policy without being kicked out, something is rotten. Especially if that policy is harming our kids.

Joel
November 14, 2018 at 6:15 pm
But it’s the church leaders who make the policies, so if you openly oppose the policy you are openly opposing them and the church. I understand your reasons for doing this but it’s the way you have gone about doing it that has caused this excommunication to happen.

Sam Young
November 14, 2018 at 6:51 pm
Your are correct. I basically tried every way I could think of. Started by talking to bishop and stake president. Dead end after 1 1/2 years. Wrote letters to apostles. Dead end. Next was petition. Then collecting stories.
Then the march to deliver the stories. Then the hunger strike to raise awareness. The excommunication actually helped raise awareness big time. As a result, many parents and bishops both have been alerted to the dangers of the Mormon interview policy. Many have taken action on their own. I really wish that the apostles had made the change during my firs 2 years of encouraging change. But, I was not willing to wait as children continue to be in harms way.

 

He was still a member when he said that our church was the most harmful church for kids and that no one should join it, right?

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

He was still a member when he said that our church was the most harmful church for kids and that no one should join it, right?

If you check out his blog, you'll find plenty of examples of speaking in opposition to the Church and its leaders, both post- and pre-excommunication (including long before he became a 'celebrity').

Edited November 15, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Avatar4321]

11 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

If you check out his blog, you'll find plenty of examples of speaking in opposition to the Church and its leaders, both post- and pre-excommunication (including long before he became a 'celebrity').

Until he’s willing to admit to himself what he did and what he continues to do, we won’t be able to repen until he’s willing to admit to himself what he did and what he continues to do, he won’t be able to repent t

[Stargazer]

On 11/13/2018 at 9:07 PM, The Nehor said:

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.

I recently read a military SF novel in which a duel between two opposing commanders is fought. The weapon chosen was heat seeking AAA missile at 500 meters. Both were advised by their seconds that the missile couldn't lock onto a human body, but both replied that if they allowed their opponent to fire first, their own missile would be able to lock on to their opponent's launcher. Unfortunately, they both forgot that even the first-launched missile would be able to lock onto the opposing launcher, in flight. They ended up firing pretty much simultaneously, and they were both blown to pieces. Sad, but true.

[cdowis]

del

Edited November 17, 2018 by cdowis

[cdowis]

del

 

Edited November 17, 2018 by cdowis

[MiserereNobis]

He's got some pretty silly shenanigans, for sure. Histrionic comes to mind. Whatever the merits of his initial issue, he is sure ruining his credibility. The leaders of my church have done some terrible things when it comes to abuse (my anger is, never mind), but the effective responses to it have not had the silly dramatics shown here.

He should look at the methods that have been effective in the Catholic Church and emulate them. Instead, from what I've read here, he's made this all about himself and how terrible the LDS leaders are because they didn't meet with him personally.