- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I think with the high profile ones the process is different. Once they have decided on the court they are already planning the excommunication. The waiting period is a paper legality. I maybe wrong, but it seems to be the standard in the bigger ones. It’s sad to me. The process may be a little different when the media is paying attention. The response may be delayed to run the response past the PR department. I imagine a largish group of people outside the chapel also has something to do with the delay. Which is easier, announcing the ruling with a crowd outside that’s likely to not be pleased with the outcome or announcing the ruling long after the crowd has dispersed?
He has his letter and is flying to Salt Lake to open it on Temple Square. I wonder what mission he’ll get called to. Quote:I wonder what mission he’ll get called to.
“I’m going to Boise, Idaho!!!”
That alone shows grandstanding. It saddens me, since I see it as a radical departure from how he started. At this point, it reeks to me of “to be seen of men”. It truly does sadden me.
Quote:
That alone shows grandstanding. It saddens me, since I see it as a radical departure from how he started.When Saul Alinsky wrote his
“Rules for Radicals”his first rule was look, act, and become like the other. He wrote his treatise in the 1970’s. When hippie clothes, long hair, and bohemian attire was the mark of a radical. All the sit-ins in the world, peaceful or otherwise, wasn’t going to move the needle. For change to happen, the
changee’sneeded to conform to the establishment. Once they were solidly based then they could move the needle. With lots of gentleness and charm. The story is no different for the church. It is the bigger party. Podcasts, magazines, publications, marches, mass resignations, fasts don’t create the desired effect. Never will. It has to be moved from within. With gentleness and charm. You have to play for the long, long game.
Sam moved the needle. The church did respond. It cracked it’s age old stance on having interviews be one on one only.
Did it get massive press? No. But if members who knew about it acted on it, the needle would have moved more. I know Bishops who read the change over the pulpit. For a solid unchanging group this is huge.
I also believe the reason his letter took so long was likely verifying his information. The people who sat in this court had a more challenging problem on their hands. I wouldn’t be surprised if in time they nudge change without even realizing.
When Sam started his fast, IMO, the cause went from Protecting the Children to one upping his stance. It’s sad. He cost the children he cared about.
dande48 wrote:
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?
First, the ones I have been to have had little resemblance to a trial. Evidence has been presented, etc., but that’s about as close as it gets. I can’t say any I have been to any that were adversarial in nature. Second, I realized I have not been telling the whole truth. I have been to at least three where the discipline is being ended (I have not been to one ending excommunication). In those cases the outcome was pretty much predetermined because the bishop/SP wouldn’t be holding the council if he didn’t think the person was ready. But yes, a predetermined outcome would seem to fly in the face of the very definition of what a council is supposed to be.
And I agree with others who have said this is sad, because Sam made some headway. Policies were changed for the better.
And so, the expected conclusion: https://www.yahoo.com/news/mormon-fighting-end-youth-interviews-ousted-faith-193930999.html ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.yahoo.com/news/mormon-fighting-end-youth-interviews-ousted-faith-193930999.html They excommunicated him. He organized a march of 1000 people in protest of the solo youth interviews, and spoke out a lot….and like Kate Kelly and John Dehlin, met with excommunication. More details inside…
I saw this from the SLT: Quote:“Young’s ousting means he is no longer a Latter-day Saint. He can’t serve in church positions or enter the faith’s temples,
pay tithingor speak or offer a public prayer in church meetings.” Ouch!
Just a brief post from the other side. I started following Sam shortly before I was fully disaffected. The moment I found out about his cause, I instantly determined that if he was exed, I was out. I guess I just got a little ahead of the game. I’ve been a lot happier since leaving the church and living authentically. Best of luck to all of you here, no matter where your journey takes you. You were all very helpful as I wrestled with my faith transition.
PS: the numbers on QuitMormon are pretty crazy right now. I caught a screenshot when there were 777 resignations queued (for reference, it was supposedly in the single digits on Friday evening). That was about an hour ago. The exmormon subreddit has grown 3 or 400 subscribers just today.
My husband has been keeping me informed all day. Including reddit and resignation stats. I have one question though, how do having all these resignations help Protect the Children?
This initially started to protect kids and youth during interviews. Now what happens? If everyone who had a stake in the initial agenda leaves, was the effort worth it? What about all the children left behind?
I find the reaction over the top. I get the idea of not wanting to be associated with a group that doesn’t respond. But that has been clear since the ERA policy fight starting in 1970. Brash pushes from the outside, whether from members or non-members, drives the top leadership into defense mode.
To me this agenda had some weight. Just because round 1.5 didn’t go well, everyone is taking their ball and going home?
Help me out here.
Welcome back, Beefster. I’m sad to see you resign, back I’m glad you’re happier now. If you need help with getting control of your addiction, try mindfulness meditation. It’s helped me a lot. It might help you. mom3 wrote:
Quote:
That alone shows grandstanding. It saddens me, since I see it as a radical departure from how he started.When Saul Alinsky wrote his
“Rules for Radicals”his first rule was look, act, and become like the other. He wrote his treatise in the 1970’s. When hippie clothes, long hair, and bohemian attire was the mark of a radical. All the sit-ins in the world, peaceful or otherwise, wasn’t going to move the needle. For change to happen, the
changee’sneeded to conform to the establishment. Once they were solidly based then they could move the needle. With lots of gentleness and charm.
The trouble is that apart from the sexual realm, they failed in many regards… in fact many of the hippies became hypercapitalist and hypocrites which is why the punks couldn’t stand them – “Never trust a hippie” as the Sex Pistols once said.
Or as Nietzsche put it more eloquently:
Quote:Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein.
(He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.)
Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 146
This is the problem with American “liberalism” – shave a hippie, make him put on a suit etc and you won’t necessarily get a result but a compromised individual. Likewise, you can get a black, a woman, a gay or whatever into power and they won’t better the general lot of their kind any more than white males in power stop other white males from sleeping on the street. You need to overhaul the system not be compromised by it.
I fear I have become largely compromised by taking such a tack with the LDS.
Quote:All the sit-ins in the world, peaceful or otherwise, wasn’t going to move the needle
That’s an American view. They certainly did elsewhere.
Sit ins, strikes etc have an effect because they often affect what the other side cares about. A factory doesn’t make money if the workers aren’t there (although automation…) and a strike affects the share price.
In my younger days, someone tried to persuade me to campaign by letter writing. Well, what I found out is that they usually ignore the letters or send a pat reply. “Your comments have been noted”. That and they a) know who you are and b) what your address is! So you can be singled out as a troublemaker and isolated.
mom3 wrote:
I have one question though, how do having all these resignations help Protect the Children?
I suppose at the very least it protects the children of the adults that resign, assuming they take their children with them. That and the unborn generations that follow them that may have otherwise been members of the church.
mom3 wrote:
This initially started to protect kids and youth during interviews. Now what happens? If everyone who had a stake in the initial agenda leaves, was the effort worth it? What about all the children left behind?The kids that are left behind are a different story. Brother and Sister Smith leaving and taking their children with them doesn’t do much for the Young family.
mom3 wrote:
I find the reaction over the top. I get the idea of not wanting to be associated with a group that doesn’t respond. But that has been clear since the ERA policy fight starting in 1970. Brash pushes from the outside, whether from members or non-members, drives the top leadership into defense mode.To me this agenda had some weight. Just because round 1.5 didn’t go well, everyone is taking their ball and going home?
Help me out here.
A butterfly passing gas in Laos probably drives top leadership into defense mode.
I don’t find the reaction over the top. It is an extreme reaction resulting from extreme conditions. The reaction would probably not be as extreme in a less extreme environment. Are the people leaving the only ones doing it wrong, or are the conditions that caused them to leave equally wrong?
For some people this may have been the final straw. Others may be leaving because they feel that is the only option we’ve left them with. Others still may feel like this is the only way to be heard at church, by voting with their feet. I’m sure there are lots of reasons.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.