Mormon Bishop Sam Young To Be Excommunicated

[Horton]

What did you think of the letter?

It’s ridiculous. It basically said you can leave before we kick you out, however…should you choose to have the hearing we will do our best to suppress any information you want to present and then kick you out; we will make you sign a agreement to not record the proceedings and then kick you out.

What kind of religion threatens a man with the loss of his salvation, his “eternal” family, his standing in the community, likely his career, because he dares to “not sustain church leaders”? Is that a religion of God? Does God set men to this task? Did God not give us free will to choose our way? Does God take away free will from the Mormons? Or is it the LDS leadership that takes away that free will?

We Catholics have much to deal with in our own Church and it’s fallible leaders. While most of us call for those responsible to be held accountable for the very real damage they caused others (not just merely wounding powerful men’s pride) many of us still offer prayers for repentance of the offenders so they may experience God’s mercy once again.

 

[Augustinian]

Yeah I’ve never understood how it could be possible to be re-baptized.

They probably wonder why people aren’t re-baptized if they revert back to Catholicism. Seems peculiar to them.

One of my old co-workers was raised Catholic- met and wed a Mormon woman, got divorced after 30 years with her- and has since reverted back to the Catholic Church. Our LDS friends are probably puzzled how the Catholic Church took him back without re-baptism.

 

[Lemuel]

I hope that Bishop Young gets excommunicated. Then he can get on with his life and experience real joy.

 

[Chris-Wa1]

Tom, I don’t know how you managed it, but just about everything you said in your post is wrong.

The CoJCoLDS in response to the less public concerns did change its policies.

The LDS church did not make any significant change to their policy. The only change they made was to give the child the option of having a parent come into their interview with the bishop. That is a joke for multiple reasons. No kid is going to elect to have their parent sit in on interviews where they are asked the most personal, intimate questions. It also puts the onus on the kid instead of the church.

I recall thinking that if what Sam Young wanted was to make things better he would have stopped.

Your thinking was wrong. Stopping would have only made it all go away, which is exactly what the church wanted.

I do not believe Sam Young’s course for the Church will protect youth as well as the current course the church is on. Sam Young’s position is that the youth should not be asked about sexual mores by church leaders.

That is absolutely ridiculous. The current course will not change anything. What Bishop Young was asking for is completely reasonable.

I believe the end game of Sam Young and/or MANY affiliated with him is the ending of sexual mores period (no teachings against homosexuality, no teachings against pre-marital sex, …). I also believe that the position espouses by Sam Young will result in greater harm to more youth because the sexual mores defined by God will be further eclipsed by the world in which we live.

That is totally absurd. In no way was he calling for those things. You are just making up stuff about him to discredit his actions.

But to end the discussion with youth about sexual mores completely or to remove the ability of a youth to council with inspired church leaders about this IMO will prove far more damaging to far more youth.

Again, just plain wrong. Youth can be taught sexual morality without putting them in the extremely uncomfortable position of answering specific questions in one-on-one interviews with a man who has zero training in handling these issues. Bishop Young put together thousands of stories of youth who have been damaged by the current policies. Bishops are not “inspired” in any way to deal with these things. They’re just normal men with normal jobs who just happen to be given a responsibility they shouldn’t have in this area. When a man becomes a bishop he doesn’t receive magical powers on how to deal with these tough issues.

 

[Chris-Wa1]

In addition to this, I think excommunication MAY be the right course of action for Sam Young. It was not just his hunger strike, it was his call to members of the CoJCoLDS to publicly declare that they do not sustain LDS leaders.

Seriously, he needs to be EXCOMMUNICATED for this? Just because he votes no in General Conference on the issue of common consent and challenges the leadership to protect the youth? He was told by his stake leadership to drop the issue. He disobeyed because he felt it was the right thing to do. And for his he should be kicked out of the church entirely? This is the main point of this thread. All the church is showing by this is that it does not tolerate dissent and that blind,
unquestioning obedience is the most important part of being a Mormon. It’s crazy. It’s what cults do, Tom.

 

[Chris-Wa1]

What kind of religion threatens a man with the loss of his salvation, his “eternal” family, his standing in the community, likely his career, because he dares to “not sustain church leaders”?

There’s nothing more important in Mormonism than obedience to the leadership. Nothing. As long as you tow the line, do as you’re told, pay your tithing, etc., life can go smoothly. But if you step out of line, if you dare to challenge your leaders, you will be marginalized, made to feel like a sinner, and eventually excommunicated (except, of course, if you’re a celebrity because excommunicating them would look bad to the public). And if anyone knows who I’m talking about feel free to chime in.

 

[AlbertDerGrosse]

It was not just his hunger strike, it was his call to members of the CoJCoLDS to publicly declare that they do not sustain LDS leaders.

Can you provide me a direct quote of this? I honestly didn’t read/listen to his laundry list of grievances since it is no longer my religious tradition and my interest in such has understandably waned. If he was actually calling on LDS to cease their sustaining of the Brethren then that would indeed be cause for apostasy and deserving of excommunication. It would be tantamount to a Catholic publicly claiming that the Pope is an imposter and not actually the valid Pope.

 

[Chris-Wa1]

That’s not at all what Sam Young was doing. He has done nothing whatsoever that deserves excommunication.

 

[AlbertDerGrosse]

I didn’t claim that he did so, @TOmNossor claimed such. I’m asking him to validate that.

 

[Chris-Wa1]

Yes I realize that. I’m just defending Sam against Tom’s ludicrous accusations.

 

[Roguish]

This is what happens when a Mormon dares to question the leadership of the LDS church. Read the letter here: […]

That does it. I’m converting to Mormonism.

 

[AlbertDerGrosse]

The thing is Tom might be privy to something Bp. Young said that could reasonably be interpreted as him not “sustaining the LDS leadership” in which case there would be a solid basis upon which to allege apostasy charges against him. Since you can’t prove a negative it behooves Tom to prove the positive.

I asked it before (I can’t remember if it was this thread or another), but what exactly are the questions asked during these interviews? Have they substantively changed since the early 2000’s when I was a teenage LDS? I don’t remember these worthiness interviews being so traumatic. I may very well have been lucky. I may very well have been spared the sexual assault, but that doesn’t negate the validity of my questioning. What are the questions asked, how are they asked, and in what way are there not recourses set for victims and their families?

 

[Roguish]

Seriously though. I’m not sure that I see anything wrong with the LDS Church’s policy of asking certain intimate question of minors, provided that they are asked tactfully and discreetly. I don’t know exactly what a “worthiness interview” is, but it sounds as if it’s an interview meant to assess whether or not a minor meets a certain level of piety or spiritual maturity. Isn’t it normal and healthy for a religious organization to attempt to determine an individual’s spiritual health before giving a certain sacrament, title, or position in the community? If, for example, a minor is watching porn (as is becoming common), then obviously there is a problem; should that minor simply be given a “pass” before he/she has made a commitment to change?

By comparison, is it right for minors in the RCC to be given confirmation if they are known to habitually watch porn and/or masturbate? But the RCC makes no attempt (that I know of) at checking explicitly with kids whether there is any sexual misbehavior. And so youngsters whose sexuality is developing in an unhealthy direction are nevertheless confirmed in the faith without any correction taking place, thus giving them the impression that these matters (i.e. confirmation on the one hand, and sexual misbehavior on the other) are unrelated. And that is a real disaster: the disconnect between actual behavior and religious rituals grows.

(But this disconnect is now endemic in the RCC. It is “normal”. It’s obvious, for example, that the majority of Catholics habitually receive communion with ever going to confession – and this doesn’t even strike them as strange, let alone wrong. The question does not even arise anymore, and that is what is slowly, gradually, but surely turning the RCC community into a collective of zombies: people who perceive no connection whatsoever anymore between the rituals and actual behavior.)

OK, so perhaps I went a little off-topic there, but the point is this: I’m not so sure the Church of LDS is making a mistake in asking minors a few probing questions as part of an assessment to see if a minor is ready for a certain “step up” in the Church. Obviously the goal is to nip unhealthy sexual behaviors in the bud, and to prevent minors with unhealthy sexual behaviors from advancing into positions that they are not (yet) suitable for. These goals are laudable.

P.S. As for the letter, what else can you expect? It’s not a verdict; it’s a formal, polite notice that Bishop Young is to appear before a tribunal. He’s informed of how the proceedings will work, and what his rights are. In addition, there’s a friendly note of spiritual support toward the end. Regardless of who’s right and who’s wrong, a religious organization doesn’t really have any other way of dealing with this kind of situation, does it?

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

It was not just his hunger strike, it was his call to members of the CoJCoLDS to publicly declare that they do not sustain LDS leaders.

Can you provide me a direct quote of this? I honestly didn’t read/listen to his laundry list of grievances since it is no longer my religious tradition and my interest in such has understandably waned. If he was actually calling on LDS to cease their sustaining of the Brethren then that would indeed be cause for apostasy and deserving of excommunication. It would be tantamount to a Catholic publicly claiming that the Pope is an imposter and not actually the valid Pope.

It is in the Excommunication Letter that was published by Sam Young and linked by Chris W. That Chris W. would deny that this was done:

That’s not at all what Sam Young was doing. He has done nothing whatsoever that deserves excommunication.

is remarkable to me. It would seem that in the face of a Catholic saying, “If he was actually calling on LDS to cease their sustainding of the Brethern then that would indeed be cause for apostasy and deserving of excommunication” must be swatted down regardless of what the facts are.

Chris_W, how can you claim this is not what was done when it is in the document you linked and Sam Young posted? Can you acknowledge that it was inappropriate for you to question this? BTW, SOME of our disagreements on this issue as evidenced in your response to me COULD be a product of a difference of opinion, but I really think your opinion is a product of your hatred of my church so it is hard for me to see through that (but I try). But, your response to Albert is remarkable!

Here is some more evidence:

Invitation to Vote Opposed–Together – Tocubit Is Invisible's Cubit

Sam Young’s cause célèbre was only the 6th most important reason to oppose the church then.

Sam Young supposedly has encouraged folks to not join the CoJCoLDS in his hunger strike live events. It would seem to me that Sam Young is Chris W’s favorite type of LDS and Chris will defend his membership at every turn regardless of how a similar situation in the Catholic Church would be handled.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

The thing is Tom might be privy to something Bp. Young said that could reasonably be interpreted as him not “sustaining the LDS leadership” in which case there would be a solid basis upon which to allege apostasy charges against him. Since you can’t prove a negative it behooves Tom to prove the positive.

I asked it before (I can’t remember if it was this thread or another), but what exactly are the questions asked during these interviews? Have they substantively changed since the early 2000’s when I was a teenage LDS? I don’t remember these worthiness interviews being so traumatic. I may very well have been lucky. I may very well have been spared the sexual assault, but that doesn’t negate the validity of my questioning. What are the questions asked, how are they asked, and in what way are there not recourses set for victims and their families?

Temple questions are very similar to the 2000’s.
The youth questions are also very similar, but there was not a standard script.
The Church has now introduced a standard script for the youth questions to ensure that appropriate interviews do not have sexually explicit questions.
I have never been in a bishop’s youth session, but until Sam Young I had never heard of this as an issue and ALL members I knew have spoken fondly of their conversations.

The reason I support the churches position on this is because I believe (like @Roguish it would seem) that respectful questions about sexual mores are appropriate AND beneficial to youth and all who desire to follow Jesus Christ.

As I said in the first post, one Bishop who verbally probes youth sexuality because he enjoys this is too many. One youth felling uncomfortable being asked about their sexual mores is not necessarily a problem depending upon the reasons for this lack of comfort and the handling by the Bishop. I am a deeply flawed individual and in no danger of becoming a Bishop, but I think I could walk this line with my eyes closed.

I am glad the questions are now standardized. I expect there could be some other changes. But, Sam Young’s methods are not IMO appropriate AND his end goal (the removal of discussion of sexual mores with an individual youth about themselves) is also not IMO good for the youth in today’s world (and probably in yesterday’s or tomorrow’s world).
Charity, TOm

 

[AlbertDerGrosse]

Thanks, and thanks for the reference to the OP link that answered my other questions.

My own experience of the interviews is quite similar. I was asked very general questions about chastity and the only specific questions were about masturbation once I had already answered in the affirmative that I was living by the law of chastity. This isn’t to deny that there might be imprudent bishops out there abusing their authority and violating individuals in such interviews, but I don’t see anything that would point to a systemic abuse fostered by the very practice of the LDS Church.

In regards to the disciplinary council against Bp. Young, thanks to your pointing out the details I don’t see anything that he or anyone else can really be surprised by. It’s not like the guy is being railroaded. He’s actively encouraging people to vote against sustaining his leaders over a correlated matter that only the Brethren can change. It really would be like a Catholic encouraging others to become Sedevacantist over priestly celibacy. I highly suspect that Bp. Young has other theological reasons to be opposed to the LDS and sexual abuse is just a convenient cause celebre for him to hitch his wagon to. He should have the courage of his convictions like us other ex-Mormons and just leave.

 

[lilypadrees]

I’m not familiar with all things Mormon. But obviously your church’s leaders feel he has overstepped the boundaries. They will do what they feel is best.

 

[AlbertDerGrosse]

I just read his “Points of Disapproval”. The alleged abuse of minors in worthiness interviews indeed appears as #6, while #2, #3, and #4 all have to do with gays and marriage. Sounds like an apostate to me. I wish the Catholic Church were a little more vigilant against the same in our ranks, to be honest.

 

[Horton]

I’m not sure that I see anything wrong with the LDS Church’s policy of asking certain intimate question of minors, provided that they are asked tactfully and discreetly. I don’t know exactly what a “worthiness interview” is, but it sounds as if it’s an interview meant to assess whether or not a minor meets a certain level of piety or spiritual maturity

Put this it may appear as though it is an innocent matter and I’m sure for some it is. But for many it is not. The LDS do not have any trained clergy, bishops are just men chosen from the ward to lead the congregation for a period of five years. They keep their day jobs as it is a “volunteer” position. These interviews are done on a yearly basis to determine “worthiness” to obtain certain access in the temples. Those who are worthy can have access, those who are not, no access.

Some of these bishops will ask very suggestive or provocative questions of young people to satisfy their own perverse pleasure or some other nefarious intent. There are actual cases of sexual abuse happening during these interviews.

While I’m sure there are plenty of bishops who do ask tactfully and appropriately, Sam Young is trying to get the LDS to do something about those who don’t.

 

[TOmNossor]

Roguish:

I’m not sure that I see anything wrong with the LDS Church’s policy of asking certain intimate question of minors, provided that they are asked tactfully and discreetly. I don’t know exactly what a “worthiness interview” is, but it sounds as if it’s an interview meant to assess whether or not a minor meets a certain level of piety or spiritual maturity

Some of these bishops will ask very suggestive or provocative questions of young people to satisfy their own perverse pleasure or some other nefarious intent. There are actual cases of sexual abuse happening during these interviews.

While I’m sure there are plenty of bishops who do ask tactfully and appropriately, Sam Young is trying to get the LDS to do something about those who don’t.

Which the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint did do. The questions are now standardized to eliminate the accidental movement into salacious territory.

But as Albert recognizes Sam Young is not interested in following the council of LDS leaders. Not concerning homosexual issues and not concerning Bishop interviews.

This is very much the WRONG DRUM for a Catholic to be beating and you and Chris should see this clearly. I am thrilled to be a member of a church that responds to these problems as the CoJCoLDS has responded. I am also VERY COMFORTABLE with whatever fate befalls Sam Young’s membership. He has been publicly disagreeing with the CoJCoLDS for years it would seem and perhaps should do so as an former LDS. He will still be welcome to worship with me in the local ward anytime (as would you).

Charity, TOm