- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
This is a really short video. Ex-Bishop is apparently up for discipline for telling people ‘not to vote for mormon leaders” — which I think, means not to sustain them… https://www.yahoo.com/news/ex-mormon-bishop-accuses-church-044244605.html Since he’s evangalizing his position, I think it’s easy to predict the outcome of his disciplinary council.
I have been following Sam for the past few months. Like many area’s in our church this one is pivotal and painful. Due to lay leadership there are plenty of youth (very young one’s at that) who have asked probing questions that should never have been asked. There are kids who were ignorant of what “masturbation” meant until they were taught it in an interview or fireside. At the same time plenty of those interviews don’t happen.
Sam made some serious headway. His efforts to not have children and youth alone during interviews did get a response from the church, though many members don’t know of it’s existence. Because of his efforts any minor having an interview can ask that another adult attend with them. They don’t have to but they can.
Some Bishop’s and Stake’s read the letter or policy change in Sacrament Meeting. I don’t think many did.
I think SD you are right that once he started asking people not to sustain the leadership, he sealed his fate. I wish he hadn’t stepped that far. I also wish he hadn’t held the 12 day fasting vigil out front of church headquarters. I think both things cost him and a good cause (I think his cause is good).
Time will tell if more long term changes in youth interviews will happen. The only thing that is certain, if he gets exed – which he will, another out break of resigners will happen.
One of these days that scale is going to tip. I will be interested to see what happens when it does.
There comes a point for some people where passion becomes zealotry – where effort becomes as much about the zealot as the cause. I don’t know Sam, so I can’t be certain, but it looks to me like that happened with him.
Sam Young has certainly made his voice heard. I think that’s maybe his intent. The Deseret News, which is owned by the Church, put out an article on about it.Quote:Houston Texas South Stake President David Frank Hruska said the disciplinary council will consider whether Young is in apostasy based on reports that he has repeatedly acted in “clear, open and deliberate public opposition to the church or its leaders,” according to the notice Hruska gave Young…
Young said Hruska warned him in January that his actions endangered his standing in the church, also often called the Mormon church. Young’s bishop issued a similar warning a week before what Young said was a 23-day hunger strike drawing attention to his opposition to the youth interviews with church leaders…
Young is the director of Protect LDS Children, which is asking the church to change its policy on interviewing children and youth to “no one-on-one interviews, no sexually explicit questions ever.”
But research (*linked to an op ed*) suggests that when youths have positive interactions with adult leaders who are religiously active they have positive outcomes and become well equiped to handle challenges as they become adults.
Church spokesman Eric Hawkins issued a statement on Thursday:
“Because of the personal nature of church disciplinary matters and to respect the privacy of those involved, the church does not provide information about the proceedings. Church discipline is administered by local leaders who are familiar with the individual and his or her circumstances.”
I’m sure Sam will keep us posted. I’m sure the Church will try to hush things up as much as they can. I am glad the LDS Church made the policy change. If it wasn’t for Sam, I don’t think the policy would’ve been changed. I think the Church is doubling down, and making it clear that the change was inacted by God-given revelation, and not because of Sam. I also think the Church wants to make it very clear, that they are not swayed by the “will of men”; and that the Church fully acts according to God’s will. They want to eliminate any notion that such petitions and protests are effective at inacting policy change.
I have known Sam for quite a long time. He is a salesman through and through, but has a really big heart. He loves people. He has many of his relatives and children of those close that have come out as gay and it tore him apart to see the pain they went though.
He tried the route of voting opposed, which seems to be a sham more than a way to have your voice heard. That ticked him off.
I too think that looking at the reality of how top church leadership puts loyalty above almost anything else, he wasn’t going to be effective (the change he wanted). I think he got pissed off and kept raising the stakes assuming he could get the change done.
I think the church is playing with fire here. If the press/public start grouping the LDS church in with the JW and the much bigger Catholic sex abuse scandles, they are going to look really bad if they don’t get some humility and admit there were problems and start making changes – they could get some seriously bad press.
I listened to the “A Thoughtful Faith” podcast last week that had a lawyer on that has been taking on LDS abuse cases most of his career (sounded like he was approaching retirement). I don’t know how much is verifiable, but he sure painted a picture that there was a lot of cover-up – as in lots of “here is a pile of money as long as you shut up”. And he said it is impossible to get a good outcome of a trial in Utah and law firms are smart enough not to try and stand up to the church or they will feel it in their pocket books.
And now I need to go get dressed and attend 3 hours of how great the church is.
LookingHard wrote:
I have known Sam for quite a long time. He is a salesman through and through, but has a really big heart. He loves people.He has many of his relatives and children of those close that have come out as gay and it tore him apart to see the pain they went though.
He tried the route of voting opposed, which seems to be a sham more than a way to have your voice heard. That ticked him off.
I too think that looking at the reality of how top church leadership puts loyalty above almost anything else, he wasn’t going to be effective (the change he wanted). I think he got pissed off and kept raising the stakes assuming he could get the change done.
I think the church is playing with fire here. If the press/public start grouping the LDS church in with the JW and the much bigger Catholic sex abuse scandles, they are going to look really bad if they don’t get some humility and admit there were problems and start making changes – they could get some seriously bad press.
I listened to the “A Thoughtful Faith” podcast last week that had a lawyer on that has been taking on LDS abuse cases most of his career (sounded like he was approaching retirement). I don’t know how much is verifiable, but he sure painted a picture that there was a lot of cover-up – as in lots of “here is a pile of money as long as you shut up”. And he said it is impossible to get a good outcome of a trial in Utah and law firms are smart enough not to try and stand up to the church or they will feel it in their pocket books.
And now I need to go get dressed and attend 3 hours of how great the church is.
I agree on the playing with fire.
I listened to that podcast, too. If what he’s saying is true, I’m ashamed of us.
Ann wrote:
LookingHard wrote:
I listened to the “A Thoughtful Faith” podcast last week that had a lawyer on that has been taking on LDS abuse cases most of his career (sounded like he was approaching retirement). I don’t know how much is verifiable, but he sure painted a picture that there was a lot of cover-up – as in lots of “here is a pile of money as long as you shut up”. And he said it is impossible to get a good outcome of a trial in Utah and law firms are smart enough not to try and stand up to the church or they will feel it in their pocket books.
I listened to that podcast, too. If what he’s saying is true, I’m ashamed of us.
I think a lot of my disappointment comes from chasm between the way the Church acts, and the way I hope it would. I struggle… I struggle a lot with coming to terms with the Church acting the way I fully expect a big business to act, rather than a divine institution. It too often feels… Machiavellian to me.
dande48 wrote:
Ann wrote:
LookingHard wrote:
I listened to the “A Thoughtful Faith” podcast last week that had a lawyer on that has been taking on LDS abuse cases most of his career (sounded like he was approaching retirement). I don’t know how much is verifiable, but he sure painted a picture that there was a lot of cover-up – as in lots of “here is a pile of money as long as you shut up”. And he said it is impossible to get a good outcome of a trial in Utah and law firms are smart enough not to try and stand up to the church or they will feel it in their pocket books.
I listened to that podcast, too. If what he’s saying is true, I’m ashamed of us.
I think a lot of my disappointment of the Church comes from the Church acting in the way I expect it to, rather than in the way I hope it would. In big business, they respond much in the same way. Some similarities I see are:
1. Throwing as much money as they need to at a problem to make it go away.
2. In the face of scandal, throwing the individual under the bus, rather than addressing the problem and taking responsibility.
3. Requiring the absolute loyalty of its “employees”, with a take it or leave it attitude, yet making it extraordinarily difficult to leave.
4. Enacting policy and procedures without the consent or input of “employees”.
In the early Church, and with younger and smaller businesses, I don’t think these problems were as prevalent. Raising your hand “opposed” meant you could voice your concerns, and things just weren’t done without common consent.
I’m not sure everything was rainbows and unicorns in the early church either. I agree that common consent seems to have had a different connotation, but it was clearly not OK to be openly, or perhaps even privately, in opposition to Joseph or Brigham. Even their close associates were ex’ed for things we’d think were silly or petty today.
I’m not a social media butterfly and actually don’t have any social media accounts. As such, the out come of the council alludes me but I would guess it’s on social media. Does anybody know what happened? (FWIW, I also can’t access social media at work.) DarkJedi wrote:
I agree that common consent seems to have had a different connotation, but it was clearly not OK to be openly, or perhaps even privately, in opposition to Joseph or Brigham. Even their close associates were ex’ed for things we’d think were silly or petty today.
Lol, I was editing my OP, just as you were responding to it. I think this was definitely the case with Brigham Young, when he isolated the Church from the rest of the world.
dande48 wrote:
DarkJedi wrote:
I agree that common consent seems to have had a different connotation, but it was clearly not OK to be openly, or perhaps even privately, in opposition to Joseph or Brigham. Even their close associates were ex’ed for things we’d think were silly or petty today.
Lol, I was editing my OP, just as you were responding to it. I think this was definitely the case with Brigham Young, when he isolated the Church from the rest of the world.
There’s a section in Rough Stone Rolling regarding Joseph’s “sensitivity” to those who didn’t agree with him. I don’t have it here in front of me but he dealt with them with a heavy hand.
DarkJedi wrote:
There’s a section in Rough Stone Rolling regarding Joseph’s “sensitivity” to those who didn’t agree with him. I don’t have it here in front of me but he dealt with them with a heavy hand.
Lol, I keep
tryingto like him! Really, I am! 🙂 Quote:Does anybody know what happened? (FWIW, I also can’t access social media at work.)
As of last night, nothing had happened. They said they would get back to him. I assume it’s a formality. The church has never held a court on a public issue and changed it’s direction.
mom3 wrote:
Quote:Does anybody know what happened? (FWIW, I also can’t access social media at work.)
As of last night, nothing had happened. They said they would get back to him. I assume it’s a formality. The church has never held a court on a public issue and changed it’s direction.
Hmm. I’ve only been on a few of these, but none where the decision wasn’t given then (within a half hour or so, after praying and sustaining). And I’ve never been to one where the outcome was predetermined (really, really).
DarkJedi wrote:
And I’ve never been to one where the outcome was predetermined (really, really).
That sort of defeats the purpose of a fair hearing and trial, doesn’t it?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.