- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Reuben wrote:
It’s worth pointing out that StayLDS self-selects for people who work quietly behind the scenes. It’s part of its character. People like Sam Young would get bored and frustrated here. And so you get narratives that talk about “the” way to get the church to change, all involving small local effects.I think this is desperately needed.
I think talking loudly and publicly is also desperately needed. Members need to know when their church causes pain. How else would they know if they don’t see it in someone’s face? How else does it invade their thoughts?
Then they need a few thoughtful people that they trust to nod gravely and say, “I think they might have a point” and then help them understand with their hearts.
I can’t help but see both approaches in Jesus’s ministry.
I agree. On page 4 I made the comment:
Quote:Does the civil rights movement succeed with just MLK Jr. or just Malcolm X or do both play their roles?
Change rarely comes about because of a single impetus or one voice from one perspective. Generational shifts may be the method that the church has historically followed but what drives the generational shifts? In the church Sam Young doing what he did can cause generational shifts.
People leaving the churchcan cause generational shifts. It seems like everyone at church knows someone that’s left and now it’s a regular topic that we cover. I don’t remember that being the case even as recent as a decade ago Not only do we know someone that’s left but we know them personally, we know they’re good people so it becomes harder to dismiss them by boogeymanifying them. It’s a generational shift.
dande48 wrote:
Reuben wrote:
I think talking loudly and publicly is also desperately needed. Members need to know when their church causes pain. How else would they know if they don’t see it in someone’s face? How else does it invade their thoughts?
This is a good point. I don’t think people would’ve been aware of the situation, if Sam hadn’t been so vocal about it. He made it a lot easier to sweep under the rug, which I have no doubt the Church would’ve continued to do.
Agreed.
Knowing about the Sam Young story made it easier in my mind to tell my branch president and husband that one of us would be in my daughter’s baptismal interview. I am .9999999999 percent certain nothing would have happened because we have a non-creepy branch president – but knowing that I could claim the social authority in the church because of the Sam Young story to be in that interview was helpful if I had to.
NOTE: The main reason I insisted that we be there is because my daughter does not always understand what is being said or implied, and sometimes it is very difficult to understand what she is saying/thinking – I wanted to be there to be a translator if needed. Both my branch president and my husband gave me weird looks over it, but we were there at that interview and did help translate. That was the reason I gave to both my husband and the branch president at the time. It could be that they thought it was overkill and I was overthinking it (and it might have been overkill) – and it was worth it to me.
dande48 wrote:
Reuben wrote:
I think talking loudly and publicly is also desperately needed. Members need to know when their church causes pain. How else would they know if they don’t see it in someone’s face? How else does it invade their thoughts?
This is a good point. I don’t think people would’ve been aware of the situation, if Sam hadn’t been so vocal about it. He made it a lot easier to sweep under the rug, which I have no doubt the Church would’ve continued to do.
I think it is a good point, and I think Sam started out OK. It was loud enough to be heard, and as has been pointed out some changes were made. Another example is Dan Reynolds and LoveLoud. He’s being loud enough to be heard, people know about him and what LoveLoud is. He has not yet crossed the line as Sam did (and I sincerely hope he doesn’t because I think it does mute the message). Again, Dan Reynolds being heard in his way, things like Believer, the stories on MormonandGay, and Sam talking about why these interviews are wrong and the harm they have caused are different from the place Sam ended up openly defying the leadership and asserting that they’re wrong and making demands. Sam was being heard. Now he is not and enough fear has been placed in others who might take up his cause that they will also not be heard.
AmyJ wrote:
dande48 wrote:
Reuben wrote:
I think talking loudly and publicly is also desperately needed. Members need to know when their church causes pain. How else would they know if they don’t see it in someone’s face? How else does it invade their thoughts?
This is a good point. I don’t think people would’ve been aware of the situation, if Sam hadn’t been so vocal about it. He made it a lot easier to sweep under the rug, which I have no doubt the Church would’ve continued to do.
Agreed.
Knowing about the Sam Young story made it easier in my mind to tell my branch president and husband that one of us would be in my daughter’s baptismal interview. I am .9999999999 percent certain nothing would have happened because we have a non-creepy branch president – but knowing that I could claim the social authority in the church because of the Sam Young story to be in that interview was helpful if I had to.
NOTE: The main reason I insisted that we be there is because my daughter does not always understand what is being said or implied, and sometimes it is very difficult to understand what she is saying/thinking – I wanted to be there to be a translator if needed. Both my branch president and my husband gave me weird looks over it, but we were there at that interview and did help translate. That was the reason I gave to both my husband and the branch president at the time. It could be that they thought it was overkill and I was overthinking it (and it might have been overkill) – and it was worth it to me.
I think it should be pointed out that another adult being in the interviews was codified in policy as a result of Sam Young, but parents could always ask and most bishops (probably like yours, Amy) would have agreed without question. There are probably only two types who wouldn’t – the creepy ones and the “all powerful” ones.
Without saying too much about what I do, because some of it is very confidential, I work directly with kids. Never, under any circumstances, are we alone with one adult and one kid. This is to protect us s well as them. Even the psychologists and social workers we have on staff are not alone with a kid – they sit in their offices with the door wide open and another staff member directly outside the door where he or she can see and hear. We have cameras everywhere as well (except in the offices themselves).
Were I to be called as bishop, or a counselor doing TR interviews, I would be the one insisting on having another adult present.
Amy and DJ, My son has been diagnosed as on the autism spectrum. 2 years ago When he was getting baptised I asked if we could be present for the interview for the same reasons Amy presented. My son does not really know the bishop and he does not respond well to authority figures. My kind hearted bishop told me that it was custumary that parents not be present and that Roy Jr. would be fine. My ultimate goal was to be permitted to perform the baptism and I was not about to push the interview issue.
My understanding is that little Roy clamed up and lied down on the floor. Bishop approved him for baptism (aren’t baptism interviews for children of record only a formality anyway?) and we all moved on.
Quote:I think talking loudly and publicly is also desperately needed. Members need to know when their church causes pain. How else would they know if they don’t see it in someone’s face? How else does it invade their thoughts?
Then they need a few thoughtful people that they trust to nod gravely and say, “I think they might have a point” and then help them understand with their hearts.
I can’t help but see both approaches in Jesus’s ministry
It is that careful line that needs to be watched for. John Dehlin was making headway. It was slow. But of anybody he got more face time with top leadership than anybody. I believe he made an impact for good. Kate Kelly also made an impact. If she had stuck to one march and not two, she likely wouldn’t have met an end. Sam, also, made important headway. Of anybody he got an actual letter and guideline. That’s big.
Howeverthe church is still the parent world wide. If the family rule is dinner at the table is required. That’s where dinner will be served, unless a parent changes the rule. Dark Jedi, mine and Silent Dawnings answers about keeping low and slow came from bdavis question.
Quote:How can we try to bring about positive changes in the Church without getting in trouble?
Love. Doing all your commenting and efforts in love. Once it becomes a battle field, whether in presentation or effort, you run the risk of being rejected, cut-off, and more. There have been plenty of changes that occurred from staying calm and caring. I think that’s the key.
bdavis, you have the luxury of a career in child therapy. You could use your career as a catalyst for “supporting the churches change” regarding having 2 adults in the interview process. From a listener’s point of view you are the authority for kids. How great is that? Most parents want their kids to be safe. As a therapist you want the adults to be safe, too. Double win. As your ward adopts the policy change happens.
For argument sake, what if Sam’s efforts hadn’t garnered any policy or letter, you still could meet with the Bishop, as a therapist, with concerns about youth being one on one. Gently, respectfully discussing the issue. I’ve seen other people bring change to their ward or Stake on other matters with that tactic. Once one ward adopts something, other wards jump on. Yes, maybe it’s only for a short while but many of those work their way up the food chain. Fast Offerings is the leading example on this. It began as a singe Stake thing. Now it’s a church wide deal.
Roy wrote:
Amy and DJ,My son has been diagnosed as on the autism spectrum. 2 years ago When he was getting baptised I asked if we could be present for the interview for the same reasons Amy presented. My son does not really know the bishop and he does not respond well to authority figures. My kind hearted bishop told me that it was custumary that parents not be present and that Roy Jr. would be fine. My ultimate goal was to be permitted to perform the baptism and I was not about to push the interview issue.
My understanding is that little Roy clamed up and lied down on the floor. Bishop approved him for baptism (aren’t baptism interviews for children of record only a formality anyway?) and we all moved on.
Maybe leadership roulette played in my favor. Maybe I was humored as an “irrational female”. Since it worked out scheduling wise that my branch president borrowed the stake president’s office after stake conference the Sunday before my daughter was baptized – it might have been easier to just go with it rather then try to reschedule anything.
My branch president made sure to comment on how it was just a formality anyways as it was finishing up. Maybe he meant to ease my concerns by implying that there wasn’t any really right answers given – just a quick check type thing.
I still struggle with understanding how it being a “formality” means that I don’t comment to make it go as easily as possible for all concerned from my point of view.
Nobody here has said people should never speak out and challenge. What we have said is that there is a line that is impossible to erase once it has been crossed – so if your desire is to continue to work in a supportive role from within to facilitate change, don’t cross the line. I try to be very careful not to judge other people, but I can analyze their actions. Sam did good. He helped cause necessary change. There was quite a bit of change. His efforts worked. He decided he wanted more – specifically, everything he wanted. Nothing less. To try to get it, he crossed the line of no return – and what happened was predictable and understandable. Right? Wrong? I can’t say, since that is a very subjective decision. It was completely predictable and understandable.
What do we each want, individually? Do we want to remain involved and work from within to “build up the kingdom of God on Earth (as we interpret that)” and/or “establish Zion”? Do we want to try to make as much change as possible before we have to leave? What is our motive? What do we want?
Sam forced an excommunication. I want to stay. To each his or her own. We are here to help those who want to stay.
Old Timer wrote:
What we have said is that there is a line that is impossible to erase once it has been crossed – so if your desire is to continue to work in a supportive role from within to facilitate change, don’t cross the line.
One line that I am very careful of is the rejection of authority. This is one that the church takes seriously. At work, if I said I did not need to listen to my boss I would be out of a job. At church it is less clear. What makes the Bishop or the SP authorities in my life. Priesthood ordinations? What if you question the legitimacy of that?
So I am in this odd place where I feel co-equal with the bishop and the SP. We are all just men. Indeed, I actually feel that my authority is primary in making decisions for my life and my family. What about church policy? I do not have authority there. I compartmentalize that and render unto ceasar that which is ceasar’s.
However, not every leader can compartmentalize as well as I can. Some feel that boundary setting is being a “buffett Mormon” to pick and choose what to obey. Because I do not want to run afoul of these individuals, I would be careful not to challenge their authority. A specific example is my Bishop in tithing setllement defining tithing as gross and telling me that tithing is one of the few commandments where we can be perfect. I could argue with him that tithing calculations are between the individual and the Lord but to do so I believe I would be challenging the Bishop’s authority to define tithing for me. Would my bishop in defining tithing be exerting church authority, personal authority, or some mixture of both. Were I to vocally reject my bishop’s definition (even just privately between us) I believe this could alter my bishops perception of me from struggling faith brother to a possible willfully stubborn, racalcitrant, and heart hearted individual that might even be a danger to the communal faith.
Even volunteer organizations need structure and a chain of command. As long as I want to play in their game I need to assent to their rules. It is one thing to have a “foul”. It is something altogether different to reject the referee’s authority to call fouls.
Do you think there is a way he might have been able to achieve his objective without going the way of excommunication? If his objective included the complete elimination of Leader-Youth interviews, probably not – at least not in the near future. In a real way, that would be like pressuring the Catholic Church to stop having priest-member confessions, even though there are obvious differences. Old Timer wrote:He decided he wanted more – specifically, everything he wanted. Nothing less. To try to get it, he crossed the line of no return – and what happened was predictable and understandable. Right? Wrong? I can’t say, since that is a very subjective decision. It was completely predictable and understandable…
Sam forced an excommunication. I want to stay. To each his or her own. We are here to help those who want to stay.
What I can’t wrap my head around and what boggles my mind is why speaking out publicly necessarily leads to excommunication. This form of public punishment seems so barbaric and the opposite of Christ like ministering. Is the church so insecure in itself that any open challenge to its authority is dealt with by kicking the challenger to the curb? Why should Sam’s actions be a forced excommunication? Because he wouldn’t get in line? Asinine!! And keep in mind he was just openly challenging a policy – not the authority of the leadership directly. A challenge to a policy is cause for excommunication?
I think of the Boston Globe reporters who exposed the Catholic church in the movie Spotlight. They were Catholics and none were excommunicated. The church leadership could ignore Sam like they did with his hunger strike if they wanted. They didn’t have to excommunicate. Their hand was not forced – they chose to discipline in the way they did. I think it is shameful.
There is an important difference between the two examples: The reporters who exposed the actions of the Catholic priests didn’t turn around and demand the Catholic Church change any of its core “religious” practices – like eliminating confessions or the existence of altar boys or all interactions with male youth. They simply exposed the corruption, so the Catholic Church could focus on that corruption and fix “non-religious” issues. (I know those actions can be attributed to organizational structure, which can be lumped in with traditional religious practices, but they are separate in the eyes of the believers, including leaders.) Sam didn’t stop where they did, and he only got excommunicated when he pushed beyond where they stopped. He didn’t just “speak out publicly”. His original activities (speaking out publicly) led to awareness and open dosucussion of a serious issue (ecclesiastical abuse), as well as necessary practical changes. That wasn’t enough for him; he wanted the complete end of a core “religious” practice. He made it clear he wasn’t going to accept anything less than that, and he took an extreme step to challenge the leadership to see it his way that went FAR beyond speaking out.
I have said multiple times that I dislike how often we use excommunication in the LDS Church and how subjective it can be. However, openly fighting against any organization and demanding it do things your way, and highlighting your resolve by intentionally making it a public fight, is not going to allow you to stay an accepted member of that organization. The Catholic Church draws that line regularly, as well, as does every other religion and denomination – and perhaps every organization of any kind
We talk of breaking points and tipping points because they exist and can’t be avoided if someone is determined to cross them.
This is just an opinion based on decades of studying history and people, but I think in the end Sam wanted to leave the Church – but he wanted to be a martyr for his cause. If he resigned or walked away, that wouldn’t happen, so he had to get excommunicated. I am quite certain he knew what would happen, and he chose to make it happen. That is not a condemnation of him or his actions. Truly, it is not. It just is a recognition that he didn’t want to stay involved from the inside, but he didn’t want to leave on his own. He wanted to be kicked out. That was important to him.
To each his or her own, but if there is “fault” in his excommunication he shares every bit as much as the Church does. I don’t use “fault” in situations like this; I use “mutual responsibility”.
I am not sure Sam “wanted” to be ex’ed, but I do think he was “willing” to be ex’ed. I do think one other thing at play that he probably got caught up in is the same thing that John Dehlin found, but Sam’s probably was harder.
John mentioned that after he started getting some attention, he was flooded with people that wanted to share their story – not necessarily recorded for the podcast, but they had to get it off their chest. He said if he was heading to a city, he would get people that said, “Let me drive you from the airport to your appointment just so I can talk.” Hearing so many people’s pain will have an impact on you.
With Sam he has a book with 100’s of reports. I know for a fact that some people have flow to go visit with him face to face just so they can tell their heartbreaking stories of abuse. I think I would be brought to anger and say, “I can’t rest until I do everything in my power to stop this.” That anger may have blinded him from seeing maybe the most effective long-term strategy, but I for one can’t say for sure that he is doing what God wants him to do.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.