Church responds to man on hunger strike


pam
 Share

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

You can't possibly be serious in your question.  If you can't come up with anything the bishop can say to your child outside of Sunday School yourself then there's no reason for bishops to meet with any child outside of Sunday School.

Edit:  Ok, I decided to help you out.  You want a heavy example, here it is - "Abort/don't abort that child".

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)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The abortion is what is possible.  A pregnant child not telling her parents she's pregnant should be adviced by the bishop to to tell their parents instead of going through with the advice on what to do with the pregnancy (as it is his job as the judge of Israel to give advice on the morality of an abortion for each specific case) without her parents' knowledge.

So your example of a heavy subject is, a "possibility" only. You can run your mind rampant with hypothetical possibilities. Lots of things are possible, but show me an actual instance where you personally have experienced a heavy subject being discussed with your child where the Bishop did not advise the child to involve their parents in the situation/repentance process.

I think you may have some very distorted ideas on what actually happens between a Bishop and those he counsels OR the whole little bowtie thing has left a bad taste in your mouth.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Anatess' point revolves around Minor Child not equaling Person.  There's a difference legally, and stewardship-wise as well.  

We're also discussing the principle of the thing, using hypotheticals.  (And ultimately, none of us are bishops here)

There is...  Legally the bishop should do as the law requires...

Stewardship-wise the Parent has primary Stewardship.. The bishop also has a Stewardship that overlaps.  One does not trump the other and when at all possible should work hand in hand together.

Thus the parents should be referring their child to the bishop to handle what the Bishop is suppose to handle, and the Bishop should be including the parent to support their child.  This is the ideal and what should happen.

The real world is not ideal, and the Child might not want to bring in the parents for many different reasons.  Most of which the Bishop should be able to bring the child around on.

If the Bishop can't then either there is something seriously wrong with the relationship or the child it simply being unreasonable.  At this point the Bishop should and is entitled to Discernment on the best course of action.

At this point in time, after all these actions have been taken, I do not have a real problem with the bishop withholding if the spirit directs him to. I have already given my reasons for this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The fact that there are people here who believe it is fine for parents not to know about their children's repentance process makes me sympathetic for the hunger striker - whoever he may be.

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

his 12 year old daughter was subjected to explicit questions, all alone, with her bishop.

Are you implying this is a bad thing?
If you are, why? Why are we assuming the worst of the Bishop? Explicit means: stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.

Are you trying to equate explicit to perverted?
Bishops repeatedly face youth who do not understand what the temple recommend questions actually mean. He should elaborate further on each question, especially for a young youth getting their recommend for the first time OR who's parents haven't explained the questions to them beforehand. Parents don't complain when the Bishop is explicit about "Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?"

The moment the Bishop needs to be explicit about the Law of Chastity for example, conjured up images of a creepy perverted old man with an innocent child run rampant.
This is unfair and a disservice to the thousands of Bishops/Branch Presidents who have and do serve faithfully with nothing but the best intentions for those in their care.

Edited by NeedleinA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NeedleinA said:

So your example of a heavy subject is, a "possibility" only. You can run your mind rampant with hypothetical possibilities. Lots of things are possible, but show me an actual instance where you personally have experienced a heavy subject being discussed with your child where the Bishop did not advise the child to involve their parents in the situation/repentance process.

I think you may have some very distorted ideas on what actually happens between a Bishop and those he counsels OR the whole little bowtie thing has left a bad taste in your mouth.
 

I did not come up with the case presented in this thread.  Maybe you need to go back and read it before you go branching to your own conversation narrative taking my posts with you.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 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)

I'll take this case and move it farther.

I posit that it is the bishops responsibility to advice the parents as well.  What say you?

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, 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 really don't care about how righteous his reasons are.  When you don't avail of the Lord's instructions on how to address grievances in the House of the Lord, I can sympathize with your cause but I can't support your methods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I'll take this case and move it farther.

I posit that it is the bishops responsibility to advice the parents as well.  What say you?

I have already given my position and the reasons why in earlier posts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

Are you implying this is a bad thing?
 If you are, why? Why are we assuming the worst of the Bishop? Explicit means: stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.

 Are you trying to equate explicit to perverted?
 Bishops repeatedly face youth who do not understand what the temple recommend questions actually mean. He should elaborate further on each question, especially for a young youth getting their recommend for the first time OR who's parents haven't explained the questions to them beforehand. Parents don't complain when the Bishop is explicit about "Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?"

 The moment the Bishop needs to be explicit about the Law of Chastity, conjured up images of a creepy perverted old man with an innocent child run rampant.
 This is unfair and a disservice to the thousands of Bishops/Branch Presidents who have and do serve faithfully with nothing but the best intentions for those in their care.

Thanks. 

Well, i was trying to avoid using 'sexually explicit' in my response.  But that is what i meant.

As far as everything else, if it doesn't appear self-evident why an older man sitting alone with a young child/teen who barely knows him, who is asking about, hearing confessions concerning, probing into, and developing ways to "fix" things of a sexually explicit nature, often without a parent's involvement, is going to hurt a lot of people (including bishops), then i am not sure i am going to be able to explain it in a way that accords you the respect you deserve - which is more important than my attempting (and almost certainly failing) to convince you i am right. 

And again, no doubt, it's good for many.  And maybe that sense of ambiguity is what i was trying to get at in my response - that just about everything that is, has a shadow - and some people stand in that shadow through no fault of their own.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I really don't care about how righteous his reasons are.  When you don't avail of the Lord's instructions on how to address grievances in the House of the Lord, I can sympathize with your cause but I can't support your methods.

Thanks.

i can understand that.  

But for Sam, he isn't dealing with God when he's dealing with the Mormon church.  He's dealing with some elderly men in an office building who (from his perspective) are too stubborn to make a positive change to their policies.

From that point of view, doing it any other way than the way he is doing it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Thanks.

i can understand that.  

But for Sam, he isn't dealing with God when he's dealing with the Mormon church.  He's dealing with some elderly men in an office building who (from his perspective) are too stubborn to make a positive change to their policies.

From that point of view, doing it any other way than the way he is doing it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  

Sure, if he has abandoned his testimony of priesthood authority then he may feel he doesn't have to follow the Lord's instructions on the matter coming from the words of the prophets.  Still doesn't make his methods good.

Just because a squeaky wheel gets results doesn't mean squeaky wheels are righteous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Sure, if he has abandoned his testimony of priesthood authority then he may feel he doesn't have to follow the Lord's instructions on the matter coming from the words of the prophets.  Still doesn't make his methods good.

 Just because a squeaky wheel gets results doesn't mean squeaky wheels are righteous.

Thanks.

i can respect that.  

i'm pretty sure the Catholic church said similar things about Martin Luther.  And Warren Jeffs says the same thing about his daughter Rachel who left and just published her book.  

And you could no doubt cite many more parallels that show you are correct - which would be better than mine.  

But the point i am trying to get across is that Sam is acting the way he is acting in accordance with his earnestly held beliefs - not in some kicking against the pricks opposition to them.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Thanks.

i can respect that.  

i'm pretty sure the Catholic church said similar things about Martin Luther.  And Warren Jeffs says the same thing about his daughter Rachel who left and just published her book.  

And you could no doubt cite many more parallels that show you are correct - which would be better than mine.  

But the point i am trying to get across is that Sam is acting the way he is acting in accordance with his earnestly held beliefs - not in some kicking against the pricks opposition to them.  

Neither the Catholic Church nor Warren Jeffs is God's true Church.

A lot of bad actions remain bad actions even when founded on good intentions.  That's how bad laws come to existence.

I'm going to P.S. this.  Martin Luther never intended to create a separatist movement.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lostinwater said:

Thanks. 

Well, i was trying to avoid using 'sexually explicit' in my response.  But that is what i meant.

As far as everything else, if it doesn't appear self-evident why an older man sitting alone with a young child/teen who barely knows him, who is asking about, hearing confessions concerning, probing into, and developing ways to "fix" things of a sexually explicit nature, often without a parent's involvement, is going to hurt a lot of people (including bishops), then i am not sure i am going to be able to explain it in a way that accords you the respect you deserve - which is more important than my attempting (and almost certainly failing) to convince you i am right. 

And again, no doubt, it's good for many.  And maybe that sense of ambiguity is what i was trying to get at in my response - that just about everything that is, has a shadow - and some people stand in that shadow through no fault of their own.  

Sure, you are welcome.

I knew you were referring to "sexually explicit" in your prior post.:)
I understand as parents (I have 4 kids), we are protective, as we should be, and we try not to place our children in dangerous or often uncomfortable situations.
To me sexually explicit does not take on the worldly definition of perverted/distorted when in the hands of the Bishop.

Our Bishop is not unknown to us. My kids see him each week at church on Sunday, he shakes their hands and knows their names, they see him at mutual during the week, we have dinner together as time permits and our kids play together from time to time. He is not some random old/elderly troll that appears from nowhere only to ask sexually explicit questions and then crawl away again. Even if we didn't have this type of relationship with him, he is more than welcome to ask them sexually explicit questions in their interviews, I invite him to. He is not however welcome to use the world's perverted view of sexually explicit. My kid's doctor and school teacher (sex ed) are also allowed to talk with my kids in a sexually explicit way.

I think too often the worlds idea of "sexually explicit" is applied to Bishops, like he is some kind of pedophiliac elderly man all alone with our kids.

Young youth being squeamish about righteous sexually explicit content isn't anything new. My kids roll their eyes and would rather smash their heads in the wall then have another sex talk with mom and dad. The same awkwardness often manifests itself with their teacher, doctor and even Bishop. It is the subject matter.

Of the 30,500+ Bishops/Branch Presidents, is there a perverted Bishop out there asking perverted questions, statistically - yes there is and he should be dealt with asap.
I just don't want us to demonize the rest in the process.

Edited by NeedleinA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

Sure, you are welcome.

I knew you were referring to "sexually explicit" in your prior post.:)
I understand as parents (I have 4 kids), we are protective, as we should be, and we try not to place our children in dangerous or often uncomfortable situations.
To me sexually explicit does not take on the worldly definition of perverted/distorted when in the hands of the Bishop.

Our Bishop is not unknown to us. My kids see him each week at church on Sunday, he shakes their hands and knows their names, they see him at mutual during the week, we have dinner together as time permits and our kids play together from time to time. He is not some random old/elderly troll that appears from nowhere only to ask sexually explicit questions and then crawl away again. Even if we didn't have this type of relationship with him, he is more than welcome to ask them sexually explicit questions in their interviews, I invite him to. He is not however welcome to use the world's perverted view of sexually explicit. My kid's doctor and school teacher (sex ed) are also allowed to talk with my kids in a sexually explicit way.

I think too often the worlds idea of "sexually explicit" is applied to Bishops, like he is some kind of pedophiliac elderly man all alone with our kids.

Young youth being squeamish about righteous sexually explicit content isn't anything new. My kids roll their eyes and would rather smash their heads in the wall then have another sex talk with mom and dad. The same awkwardness often manifests itself with their teacher, doctor and even Bishop. It is the subject matter.

Of the 30,500+ Bishops/Branch Presidents, is there a perverted Bishop out there asking perverted questions, statistically - yes there is and he should be dealt with asap.
I just don't want us to demonize the rest in the process.

Thanks.

It's hard (but healthy) for me to hear stories contrary to my own.  Most of the people i know have a completely different experience.  i expect Sam Young had a completely different experience also - and that this is his reason for doing what he is doing - that, and just being a voice for all the other people who have had experiences similar to his own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/31/2018 at 3:47 PM, NeuroTypical said:

I think we both agree that repentance is between the sinner, the Lord, and the bishop.  And we agree, that when minors are involved, it's the parent's stewardship and responsibility to help the kid get that done.   We're discussing the area where it is getting done without (or in spite of) a parent's involvement. 

Anatess casts a vote for grounded practical reality of black and white-ness - parent/legal guardian is always involved, all the time, no exceptions.  Otherwise there's unjust ursurping of parental stewardship going on.

I can certainly appreciate that notion.  I'm not wise or experienced enough to know if it's always the most correct notion. 

 

It can be at least as “abusive” for a parent to question a child about their sexuality, as for an ecclesiastical leader to engage in similar questioning.

Remember, most of the malcontents who kvetch about the Church’s policy here are social liberals who are perfectly fine with judges signing off on teenaged girls getting abortions without their parents’ knowledge.  This isn’t about parental prerogative; it’s about getting teenagers out into the sexual marketplace and eroding the institutions and relationships  that suppory those teenagers who have made it a goal to live the law of chastity as taught by the Mormon Church.

When you assume that The Left sees socially conservative teenagers as the last source of reliably STD-free sexual partners in American society and wants to get those teenagers into the sexual marketplace posthaste, the Left’s next moves against the LDS Church and other like-minded institutions become rather predictable.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, 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.  

Sam Young has been a nonbelieving Mormon since 2014.

https://www.millennialstar.org/guest-post-what-is-sam-young-really-after/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, lostinwater said:

As far as everything else, if it doesn't appear self-evident why an older man sitting alone with a young child/teen who barely knows him, who is asking about, hearing confessions concerning, probing into, and developing ways to "fix" things of a sexually explicit nature, often without a parent's involvement, is going to hurt a lot of people (including bishops), then i am not sure i am going to be able to explain it in a way that accords you the respect you deserve - which is more important than my attempting (and almost certainly failing) to convince you i am right. 

Unless, of course, that adult man is teaching a sex ed curriculum. Or a abortionist.  Or a “mental health progesssional”.  Or a guardian ad litem, or a social worker, or a foster parent, or a juvenile court judge meeting a teenaged girl in camera.

It’s not men who (we are to believe) are the threat; or even older male authority figures.  It’s Mormon bishops.  And maybe, if we’re feeling particularly generous, we’ll broaden that category to conservative men, generally.

Funny, that.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Unless, of course, that adult man is teaching a sex ed curriculum. Or a abortionist.  Or a “mental health progesssional”.  Or a guardian ad litem, or a social worker, or a foster parent, or a juvenile court judge meeting a teenaged girl in camera.

 It’s not men who (we are to believe) are the threat; or even older male authority figures.  It’s Mormon bishops.  And maybe, if we’re feeling particularly generous, we’ll broaden that category to conservative men, generally.

 Funny, that.

Thanks.  

Well, my dad was actually a bishop in the past.  He's about as stand-up a guy as you'll find - and i still feel this way.

Anyways, i'd be saying the same thing if it was a singles ward relief society president, a leader of the catholic church, or a liberal junior high school teacher.  

Really, i don't think the people in this movement are out on some personal vendetta against the Mormon church.  But to argue the point further i expect would make chasing one's tail look like a case study in efficiency.  i'm sure everyone's got their reasons for believing as they do - and that's fine.  So i'll step out of this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Thanks.  

Well, my dad was actually a bishop in the past.  He's about as stand-up a guy as you'll find - and i still feel this way.

Anyways, i'd be saying the same thing if it was a singles ward relief society president, a leader of the catholic church, or a liberal junior high school teacher.  

Really, i don't think the people in this movement are out on some personal vendetta against the Mormon church.  But to argue the point further i expect would make chasing one's tail look like a case study in efficiency.  i'm sure everyone's got their reasons for believing as they do - and that's fine.  So i'll step out of this thread.

 

So when can we expect you to be going to these guys

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Unless, of course, that adult man is teaching a sex ed curriculum. Or a abortionist.  Or a “mental health progesssional”.  Or a guardian ad litem, or a social worker, or a foster parent, or a juvenile court judge meeting a teenaged girl in camera.

And tell them they should not be doing their jobs?...  Because I would like a ringside seat to that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It’s not men who (we are to believe) are the threat; or even older male authority figures.  It’s Mormon bishops.  And maybe, if we’re feeling particularly generous, we’ll broaden that category to conservative men, generally.

Funny, that.

Why stop there?  Conservative white men is where you're headed, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

When you assume that The Left sees socially conservative teenagers as the last source of reliably STD-free sexual partners in American society and wants to get those teenagers into the sexual marketplace posthaste, the Left’s next moves against the LDS Church and other like-minded institutions become rather predictable.  

Oh wow, that's darker than I expected to see in this thread.  I'm counting the number of lefties I currently know pretty well.  Maybe 3 or 4, with another half dozen I've known for years.  Not counting the tons of young lefties I interact with online.  I can't think of a single one of them that would come within a mile of such a notion if you paid them.  They'll fight to the death over notions like "freeing innocent kids from the puritanical shaming of outdated sexual mores from institutional churches trying to control future generations to ensure power, because it leads to shame and suicide".  But it's about hating and fighting institutions and beliefs on the right - it's not about trying to increase the pool of clean partners.  Most of 'em believe your average conservative teen is just hiding their sexuality out of shame or hypocrisy, so they'd probably argue with how STD-free we are in the first place. 

I mean, it's possible that someone on the left is that selfish and horrible of a person.  But I don't know any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Why stop there?  Conservative white men is where you're headed, right?

I thought about going there, but (inter alia) Clarence Thomas.

50 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Oh wow, that's darker than I expected to see in this thread.  I'm counting the number of lefties I currently know pretty well.  Maybe 3 or 4, with another half dozen I've known for years.  Not counting the tons of young lefties I interact with online.  I can't think of a single one of them that would come within a mile of such a notion if you paid them.  They'll fight to the death over notions like "freeing innocent kids from the puritanical shaming of outdated sexual mores from institutional churches trying to control future generations to ensure power, because it leads to shame and suicide".  But it's about hating and fighting institutions and beliefs on the right - it's not about trying to increase the pool of clean partners.  Most of 'em believe your average conservative teen is just hiding their sexuality out of shame or hypocrisy, so they'd probably argue with how STD-free we are in the first place. 

I mean, it's possible that someone on the left is that selfish and horrible of a person.  But I don't know any.

*shrug*  One hopes not.  But some years ago I came across the factoid that, statistically, one in three Americans has an STD; and I gamed out the “what if cultural leftism is all about securing disease-free sex partners for its pet constituencies?” scenario as an intellectual exercise.  Much of what I then anticipated—including an all-out assault on LDS bishops as well as other familial/institutional structures that encourage youth to remain abstinent—is now coming to pass.  If a theory turns out to be useful in accurately predicting future events (as mine has been)—well, what then?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share