Church responds to man on hunger strike

[NeedleinA]

1 minute ago, zil said:

Huh!?  It's just a cute little puppy and his squeaky toy.  What's gross about that?

"Tolerate liberal" dog, I can see it in his eyes. Taking hands from the rich and giving them to others, some kind of redistribution of wealth thing??🐈

[Just_A_Guy]

18 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Speaking of attorneys @Just_A_Guy, the sheriff has been pestering me lately. Something about polygamy being illegal....got time for a consultation? 

I work for The Man now, but I’d be happy to sit down with you and let you bare your soul.  Then, please just don’t leave the state for the next 5-10 years . . . we’ll get to you eventually.

From what I’m hearing of compound life, you may find jail preferable anyways.   

Edited August 2, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest MormonGator]

10 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

From what I’m hearing of compound life, you may find jail preferable anyways.   

That made me literally laugh out loud. 

[Backroads]

2 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

I read the first two (supposed) anonymous posts from people. Sorry, but they were so outlandish with an axe to grind as to not even resemble anything credible.

Indeed, the trouble with anonymous posts is there's not much to them.

Some years ago during a crisis of faith, I found myself on a website (one that claimed to be fair and neutral and all that) which shared people's horrible temple experiences. One was a woman who tearfully tells how she is writing to this website shortly after receiving a cellphone call from her Mormon husband in the temple telling her how much he loved her and the children before his throat was slit in a human sacrifice there.

I know we're really good about covering up our goat sacrifices, but I can't help but think the human sacrifices would have made the news by now. Or at least be made known to more members of the church.

Anywho, my point is that after that I stopped trusting anonymous posts.

[Just_A_Guy]

38 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

That made me literally laugh out loud. 

Well, my first goal is always to offend.  But when that’s not possible, I settle for making people smile.  

[NeedleinA]

17 minutes ago, Backroads said:

Indeed, the trouble with anonymous posts is there's not much to them.

and...the same ol' person can create 100+ posts pretending to be different people.
(Our business gets spam emails every so often by individuals offering to write "untraceable" fake reviews/testimonials for us on Google, Yelp, etc.😫)
 

[zil]

6 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

and...the same ol' person can create 100+ posts pretending to be different people.

Given that all but one of us is a sock puppet for the one of us, I'd say this site proves that fact quite handily.

[NeedleinA]

7 minutes ago, zil said:

Given that all but one of us is a sock puppet for the one of us, I'd say this site proves that fact quite handily.

Oooh, but who is the real "one of us"??

[zil]

16 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Well, my first goal is always to offend.  But when that’s not possible, I settle for making people smile.  

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, zil said:

 He became a lawyer because his personality just wasn't right for being you know, a decent person. 

[zil]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

 He became a lawyer because his personality just wasn't right for being you know, a decent person. 

Yer mean.

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, zil said:

Yer mean.

He knows I'm playing. Nothing but love @Just_A_Guy

[SilentOne]

2 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

Oooh, but who is the real "one of us"??

 

That would be me, I believe.

 

[FoolsMock]

On 7/30/2018 at 12:53 PM, BJ64 said:

He wants them to stop asking about masturbation. I would agree with that but there will have to be a rethinking on that issue before they quit asking about it. I read a rumor that a northern Utah stake was directed by a visiting general authority to no longer ask about masturbation but that’s most likely just a rumor. 

I’ve noticed that “To Young Men Only” is no longer available in print or for download. The conference talk it was based on is also not available on gospel library either. Though it’s still available for viewing on lds.org. I think this is a step in moving away from the strict anti masturbation stance of the past but it’s still not to the point of not asking. 

What happens to teenagers who become addicted to sexual sin (masturbation, pornography, sexual acts with others) and are only able to finally address and work on it with Priesthood leaders when they are 18+?  I'm not saying I'm against proposals to not ask about masturbation, but we believe in the law of chastity and teenage years are a landmine for people getting introduced and addicted to spiritually destructive sexual transgressions.  Everyone is just supposed to handle it on their own until they turn 18+?

 

From 14 to 26 (3 years in recovery, from abstaining from masturbation, pornography and other law of chastity transgressions, the healing power of Christ's atonement is real) I was addicted to masturbation and pornography.  I went on a mission unworthily, took out my endowments unworthily (received my patriarchal blessing unworthily too).  I've lied to priesthood leaders, all it did was hurt me and prevent me from repenting and being blessed to feel the the power of the atonement.  I wasn't able to overcome my addictions on my own and in my early 20s, lying to leaders really damned me, and in my early 20s, the addictions I had stemmed from things I got into as a teenager.  I'm not against having leaders not ask about this to people younger than 18, I just hope the Lord's will on this issue is revealed and stood up for

Edited August 31, 2018 by FoolsMock

[JohnsonJones]

I think it is unfortunate.

In my family we've seen three investigations into sexual abuse by an LDS leader, normally a Bishopric or Stake Presidency Member.  At least two of them have led to settlements rather than have the court cases go further I suppose.

My own son had inappropriate and probing questions asked which made him think he was guilty of doing sinful actions.  He COULD NOT STOP.  It became apparent later because the stupid leader made the kid think that Wet Dreams were the same as masturbation. 

Unfortunately, until a Catholic moment happens and a major class action lawsuit which people WILL not settle comes out, the LDS church probably will not enforce some of the changes.

What's even worse is SOME of the questions which have been asked by church leaders in the past WOULD QUALIFY AS CHILD ABUSE!!!

What you say to a child and how explicitly you talk to them IS considered child abuse when it hits a certain level. 

Things that I was asked about when I went on a Mission many years ago, if asked to someone today under the age of 18 by JUST ABOUT ANYONE unless pursuing it in a court case or legal matter would be considered Child Abuse.

There is NO CHECKS on this overall.

I DO appreciate that children have the opportunity to ask an adult or parent to be with them, and I always make sure when I am with a child to try to check if we can have one there (unless the child absolutely protests).  This is more of a thing I do to protect me (see the cases above, there have also been frivolous cases where if there had been other witnesses it probably could have been cleared up from the beginning) from anyone who may be hostile towards the church (we have a few occasionally, but we still love them and their families).

What I find weird is HOW the LDS church gets away with this at times.  They have leaders that, unknowingly in most cases, are abusing children.  I think that is what a LOT of the movement is about and why there are many people who are angry and upset about the church's approach.

I DO appreciate what the church has done recently (though I think I may be the ONLY ONE who actually is advocating it by trying to have two adults in classes with children and youth no matter whether it is men or women, and allowing parents or adults in with their children in interviews if the child so desires...there are times the child might not though and that is up to the youth or child).  The release said

Quote

"Children and youth are precious. We share a desire to protect them, to help them grow and develop faith in the Savior, Jesus Christ and to live good and moral lives. This includes building good relationships with ecclesiastical and youth leaders who can provide support in many settings including personal interviews.

"In recent months, the church has taken important steps to improve these interactions and to strengthen the relationships between young people and their parents and leaders, and will continue to do so.

 

And this is a good thing.

 

The problem that I see with Brother Sam Young was that he was frequenting and gaining support not just from LDS members, but a HUGE contingent of Anti-Mormons as well.  Now, many of those Anti-Mormons have had terrible experiences with this, but if one wants to garner support in the church and it's well being, turning for support from it's enemies is NORMALLY a VERY BAD thing to do.

Because of this, I'm not sure if he is going to get the desired outcome he wants and may end up eventually being disfellowshipped or even excommunicated.  I would hope instead he finds other ways to bring attention to the cause he is trying to forward, rather than ally with those who want to destroy the Church by any means possible.  I think he may have started out meaning well, but with the way he's been going about it recently, I'm not sure whose side he is on.  Is he really on our side to strengthen the church by making things that are good for both children, AND adults...or is he falling to the temptations to simply make a ruckus for no more reason than to cause trouble and make a stir? 

I hope that whatever outcome can be found with love and spiritual guidance from all, and that Brother Sam Young can find peace and happiness without the discord that comes from becoming more and more against the church (aka...anti-Mormon) himself.

I've only read the first page thus far, so if this was all talked about already...I apologize.

Oh...and I would want to say...YOUTH ARE ABSOLUTELY required to keep the Law of Chastity.  It is part of the covenant we make at Baptism to follow the commandments of the  Lord.

[JohnsonJones]

On ‎8‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 9:22 AM, estradling75 said:

The only case where I can even imagine a Bishop not having the parents involved in such a case... is if the kid is absolutely and totally 100 percent against it.  (I fully expect the Bishop will use all the powers of persuasion allowed by section 121 to change the kids mind).   If your child is that much afraid of you finding out (that the bishop can't bring them around) then you have failed as a parent.  It is not the bishop's responsibility to fix my failures.  (although he can clearly support and encourage me to do so)

In the US I think he probably is fine.

In some other nations, that Bishop would be violating the law.

Makes it interesting when reflecting upon the 12th Article of Faith.

Edited August 31, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[JohnsonJones]

On ‎8‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 10:33 AM, lostinwater said:

Agree.

And a bit of background - Sam Young (the hunger striker) has 6 daughters.  The reason he lists for his doing the strike is because his 12 year old daughter was subjected to explicit questions, all alone, with her bishop.  And that kind of questioning lasted for years.  Oh, and he was, himself, a bishop at one time.  So he certainly has seen both sides of this.

It's certainly an understandable notion that he's just doing this for some kind of sour-grapes-based public relations stunt, but i really don't think that's accurate.

He's also spent a *lot* of his own money taking out ads to draw more attention to this issue.  

i don't know on things like these.  It's voluntary - but if you don't, you're going to be viewed differently in the ward, not be able to do some things, etc.,.  It's good for some, and awful for others.  Some bishops show a sufficient amount of discretion, and others are completely off the wall.  

For most people i know, it's just awful - though people on this forum seem to have had some positive experiences with it.  

i actually think that this will have been a huge success.  Just because the Mormon church isn't sending the apostles out one by one to meet with him, it's getting a tremendous amount of press - and a lot of bishops are going to see it.  My guess is quite a few are going to exercise a lot more discretion than they have in the past.  

I must admit, I did not see ANY news or stuff on this outside of the US.  I'm not sure his media attention got any further than the Arizona, Utah, Idaho area...or if it did it was very brief and probably not front page news.

[BJ64]

1 hour ago, FoolsMock said:

What happens to teenagers who become addicted to sexual sin (masturbation, pornography, sexual acts with others) and are only able to finally address and work on it with Priesthood leaders when they are 18+?  I'm not saying I'm against proposals to not ask about masturbation, but we believe in the law of chastity and teenage years are a landmine for people getting introduced and addicted to spiritually destructive sexual transgressions.  Everyone is just supposed to handle it on their own until they turn 18+?

I can’t speak for him but I believe the point is that questioning should not go beyond asking if the child obeys the law of Chastity and not probing further unless the child brings it up. 

However I will add that there are a lot of members out there who do not think masturbation should be discussed because they feel that it by itself is not sinful. 

[JohnsonJones]

1 hour ago, FoolsMock said:

What happens to teenagers who become addicted to sexual sin (masturbation, pornography, sexual acts with others) and are only able to finally address and work on it with Priesthood leaders when they are 18+?  I'm not saying I'm against proposals to not ask about masturbation, but we believe in the law of chastity and teenage years are a landmine for people getting introduced and addicted to spiritually destructive sexual transgressions.  Everyone is just supposed to handle it on their own until they turn 18+?

 

From 14 to 26 (3 years in recovery, from abstaining from masturbation, pornography and other law of chastity transgressions, the healing power of Christ's atonement is real) I was addicted to masturbation and pornography.  I went on a mission unworthily, took out my endowments unworthily (received my patriarchal blessing unworthily too).  I've lied to priesthood leaders, all it did was hurt me and prevent me from repenting and being blessed to feel the the power of the atonement.  I wasn't able to overcome my addictions on my own and in my early 20s, lying to leaders really damned me, and in my early 20s, the addictions I had stemmed from things I got into as a teenager.  I'm not against having leaders not ask about this to people younger than 18, I just hope the Lord's will on this issue is revealed and stood up for

The first thing I would hope is that you would talk to a parent as someone under 18.  Over 18, go talk to your Bishop.  Your Bishop, inside, is not going to be happy to listen.  It has NOTHING to do with you, but these are not things he really enjoys listening to (unless he really is a pervert).  He is probably just as uncomfortable as the youth confessing.  Unfortunately, people would not believe HOW MANY actually have these problems in the LDS church (of course, my experiences are anecdotal, but I would wager it's pretty similar across the board).

The Bishop is there to help one overcome and repent of sin.  This can be one of those.  I PERSONALLY feel it is a personal matter between an individual and the Lord...BUT my personal opinion is not what the directive is.  The directive tends to be open to interpretation, but there have been many church leaders which have expressed that this should be told to a Bishop.  Unfortunately, I don't think they realized (or maybe they did) just how much of a Bishop's time this may actually take in some wards.  And no, in the US, Bishops do NOT have to tell parents about such things (Clerical/church leader confidentiality is a real thing in the US), but they can encourage the youth to tell their parents.  Such actions can also help in the process of overcoming such things.

Thus personally, I would have it that if the person is under 18 that they go talk to their parents instead.  In fact, Richard G. Scott varied in his instructions, at times saying talk to a Bishop, at others saying talk to a parent.  In general, people feel they should talk to the bishop I think...though I think there are some Bishops that would hope the church clarifies that youth can get away by repenting on their own or talking to a parent instead.  Be a LOT more comfortable with interviews at times.

[BJ64]

24 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I think it is unfortunate.

In my family we've seen three investigations into sexual abuse by an LDS leader, normally a Bishopric or Stake Presidency Member.  At least two of them have led to settlements rather than have the court cases go further I suppose.

My own son had inappropriate and probing questions asked which made him think he was guilty of doing sinful actions.  He COULD NOT STOP.  It became apparent later because the stupid leader made the kid think that Wet Dreams were the same as masturbation. 

Unfortunately, until a Catholic moment happens and a major class action lawsuit which people WILL not settle comes out, the LDS church probably will not enforce some of the changes.

What's even worse is SOME of the questions which have been asked by church leaders in the past WOULD QUALIFY AS CHILD ABUSE!!!

What you say to a child and how explicitly you talk to them IS considered child abuse when it hits a certain level. 

Things that I was asked about when I went on a Mission many years ago, if asked to someone today under the age of 18 by JUST ABOUT ANYONE unless pursuing it in a court case or legal matter would be considered Child Abuse.

There is NO CHECKS on this overall.

I DO appreciate that children have the opportunity to ask an adult or parent to be with them, and I always make sure when I am with a child to try to check if we can have one there (unless the child absolutely protests).  This is more of a thing I do to protect me (see the cases above, there have also been frivolous cases where if there had been other witnesses it probably could have been cleared up from the beginning) from anyone who may be hostile towards the church (we have a few occasionally, but we still love them and their families).

What I find weird is HOW the LDS church gets away with this at times.  They have leaders that, unknowingly in most cases, are abusing children.  I think that is what a LOT of the movement is about and why there are many people who are angry and upset about the church's approach.

I DO appreciate what the church has done recently (though I think I may be the ONLY ONE who actually is advocating it by trying to have two adults in classes with children and youth no matter whether it is men or women, and allowing parents or adults in with their children in interviews if the child so desires...there are times the child might not though and that is up to the youth or child).  The release said

 

And this is a good thing.

 

The problem that I see with Brother Sam Young was that he was frequenting and gaining support not just from LDS members, but a HUGE contingent of Anti-Mormons as well.  Now, many of those Anti-Mormons have had terrible experiences with this, but if one wants to garner support in the church and it's well being, turning for support from it's enemies is NORMALLY a VERY BAD thing to do.

Because of this, I'm not sure if he is going to get the desired outcome he wants and may end up eventually being disfellowshipped or even excommunicated.  I would hope instead he finds other ways to bring attention to the cause he is trying to forward, rather than ally with those who want to destroy the Church by any means possible.  I think he may have started out meaning well, but with the way he's been going about it recently, I'm not sure whose side he is on.  Is he really on our side to strengthen the church by making things that are good for both children, AND adults...or is he falling to the temptations to simply make a ruckus for no more reason than to cause trouble and make a stir? 

I hope that whatever outcome can be found with love and spiritual guidance from all, and that Brother Sam Young can find peace and happiness without the discord that comes from becoming more and more against the church (aka...anti-Mormon) himself.

I've only read the first page thus far, so if this was all talked about already...I apologize.

Oh...and I would want to say...YOUTH ARE ABSOLUTELY required to keep the Law of Chastity.  It is part of the covenant we make at Baptism to follow the commandments of the  Lord.

@JohnsonJonesI view you as a voice of reason in discussions involving the law of chastity. I wonder where you draw the line on asking about masturbation? Personally I feel the question should not go beyond “Do you obey the lay of chastity?”  

When I was interviewed to be ordained a high priest about three years ago the stake president asked me if I masturbate. My reply was that I had in the past but had resolved it with my bishop. I asked why he asked me and he said it was his duty as president of the high priest quorum to make sure that no man that masturbates is ordained a high priest. 

Personally I found the question offensive. He just as well have asked If have oral sex or play out sexual fantasies with my wife and such. I think the question should stick to do you obey the law of chastity and if the member has concerns then he or she can then ask regarding them. 

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

@JohnsonJonesI view you as a voice of reason in discussions involving the law of chastity. I wonder where you draw the line on asking about masturbation? Personally I feel the question should not go beyond “Do you obey the lay of chastity?”  

When I was interviewed to be ordained a high priest about three years ago the stake president asked me if I masturbate. My reply was that I had in the past but had resolved it with my bishop. I asked why he asked me and he said it was his duty as president of the high priest quorum to make sure that no man that masturbates is ordained a high priest. 

Personally I found the question offensive. He just as well have asked If have oral sex or play out sexual fantasies with my wife and such. I think the question should stick to do you obey the law of chastity and if the member has concerns then he or she can then ask regarding them. 

Has it occurred to you that, just maybe, the problem here isn't with the stake president?

[JohnsonJones]

22 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

@JohnsonJonesI view you as a voice of reason in discussions involving the law of chastity. I wonder where you draw the line on asking about masturbation? Personally I feel the question should not go beyond “Do you obey the lay of chastity?”  

When I was interviewed to be ordained a high priest about three years ago the stake president asked me if I masturbate. My reply was that I had in the past but had resolved it with my bishop. I asked why he asked me and he said it was his duty as president of the high priest quorum to make sure that no man that masturbates is ordained a high priest. 

Personally I found the question offensive. He just as well have asked If have oral sex or play out sexual fantasies with my wife and such. I think the question should stick to do you obey the law of chastity and if the member has concerns then he or she can then ask regarding them. 

I follow the directions that we've been given by church leadership in regards to questions I may ask and when they are asked.

If I were going to give a Temple Interview, as instructed, I would stick to the questions given.  IF, the individual wished to divert from it, then we will go as far into detail as they want to go.

If it is with a Youth, and we are starting to head into territory which I feel is inappropriate to discuss alone with the child I will express my own concerns today (now that they are allowed to ask an adult or parent to come in) and ask if there may be another adult that they may be comfortable with that could join us as well.  It is STILL the choice of the youth (just to be clear).

Now, I would deviate if there is a STRONG sense that I need to ask further about something for clarification.  That has occurred, but normally I put the onus on the individual.

For example, lets take something less serious.  Let's say I ask if they keep the Word of Wisdom and they say yes.  Then something jumps out at me and I realize that they are smoking.  I probably would say something as...according to what you've told me, I am going to sign your Temple Recommend.  However, I feel as if I need to clarify something, just as much for me as for you.  When I read the Word of Wisdom it talks about Alchohol, Tobacco and Hot Drinks and how we should refrain from these things.  It keeps coming to my mind that I need to touch upon it.  It could just be as a refresher to me or for you to teach me, I'm not absolutely certain.  As such, would you mind if we discuss the Word of Wisdom just a little bit more?

If it is something invariably they will bring it up and have a desire to clarify things, or at times even decide themselves that perhaps they are not at the point that they want to be in following the certain commandment.  However, if they say they are following the word of wisdom and are staunch about it, I am going to sign that recommend.  If they feel right about it, I am going to take their word for it overall. 

My own take is that your Stake President was probably out of line, but there have been rumors that in some parts of the US certain Stakes (especially in Utah) have been instructed to get MORE explicit in their interviews rather than stick with the questions as is the general instruction.

 

PS: I want to add I have NEVER been a Stake President, so I am not privy to what they may ask or not ask in their own personal interviews unless it is with a Temple Interview typically.  They do PPR's with Ward Leadership, but other than how they do it in my Stake, I cannot say how they would do them in other Stakes.

Edited August 31, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[BJ64]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Has it occurred to you that, just maybe, the problem here isn't with the stake president?

Are you inferring that a stake president deviating from the standard of list of ordination questions stems from a problem higher up in the leadership chain?    

[Vort]

4 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Are you inferring that a stake president deviating from the standard of list of ordination questions stems from a problem higher up in the leadership chain?    

I think you don't know what it means to infer something. No, I'm not inferring (or even implying) any such thing.

[lostinwater]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I must admit, I did not see ANY news or stuff on this outside of the US.  I'm not sure his media attention got any further than the Arizona, Utah, Idaho area...or if it did it was very brief and probably not front page news.

This has actually blown up recently.

Sam got a letter calling him to a disciplinary council.  i think in about a week.  No surprise, for sure.  Article is (or at least was ) on front page of Fox News, US News and World Report, and probably several others.

Assuming he is excommunicated (and i can't imagine he won't be) - this is going to make for quite the headline, especially given the recent goings-on in the Catholic church.