Sam Young, the prototypical model, the enemy of the church?

[Rob Osborn]

Ive been following this stoty of Sam Young, the latest public dissenting voice in our membership. He wants to stop personal interviews that involve chastity questions with our youth. Is he the prototypical enemy of our church? I believe so. Whereas his motives seem sincere his tactics and allegations are typical of being a wolf in sheeps clothing. Even though they claim to want to retain membership on the one hand for the world to see, on the other they tell people not to join the corruption and then go on to denounce the prophets and their ability. These types are the worst kind because they use a front of innocence like children (as you can see on the front page [Mod: really dude?]   of his organization against the church) to get people to take his side and then attack the leadership as horrible monsters. Theres no doubt in my mind he is the next new prototypical face of the enemy of the church. Will he be excommunicated? He should, but that is not my call to make. Its hard to go to church as a lamb only to sit next to the very wolves that pretend to do no harm. His potential for destroying the sheep are greater than the cause he supposedly is fighting for.

Edited September 12, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[Guest MormonGator]

There are no winners in the Sam Young saga. Everyone has lost here. The church, Sam himself, his supporters, his detractors. Like you I think he is sincere, but I also think his motives are pure too. I don't think he wants to harm the church, he wants to protect children.  So I don't place him with Kate Kelly, John Dehlin, or some of the more famous critics of Mormonism. 

 

Edited September 12, 2018 by MormonGator

[Jane_Doe]

4 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

There are no winners in the Sam Young saga. Everyone has lost here. The church, Sam himself, his supporters, his detractors. Like you I think he is sincere, but I also think his motives are pure too. I don't think he wants to harm the church, he wants to protect children.  So I don't place him with Kate Kelly, John Dehlin, or some of the more famous critics of Mormonism. 

 

Upon watching his saga, I personally disagree with you here.  The longer and longer he protracts this out, the more and more I see a man loving the fame and just using the idea of protecting kids to propagate his own fame.  

[NeuroTypical]

So again, just to make sure we all understand what the church is doing...

Church Statement About Alleged Sexual Assault by Former Mission President - Newsroom - March 2018

  Quote

Sexual abuse cannot be tolerated in the Church. We continue to urge our leaders to take reports of abuse very seriously. Leaders should call the Church's abuse helpline, which has been established to assure that victims are cared for and that abuse reporting laws are strictly obeyed.

 

And this:
How the Church Approaches Abuse - Newsroom - Take a look at what the church says about these headings:

  Quote

- Our First Priority: Help the Victim, Stop Abuse
- Victims Are Innocent
- Children Are a Gift from God
- Zero-Tolerance Policy
- A Societal Plague
- The Church’s Comprehensive Efforts to Prevent Abuse and Protect Children
- Congregations can provide great protection:
- Facilities and programs designed to protect against abuse:
- Process for calling leaders:
- Membership record annotations:
- Professional help line:
- Counseling available:
- Continuing Vigilance
- Convicted Abusers Not Permitted to Work with Children
- Responsibility to Educate, Be Watchful
- Our Duty to Safeguard Children

 

And President Hinckley's General Conference talk from 2002, where he talks about spousal, elderly, and child abuse:

Now I wish to mention another form of abuse that has been much publicized in the media. It is the sordid and evil abuse of children by adults, usually men. Such abuse is not new. There is evidence to indicate that it goes back through the ages. It is a most despicable and tragic and terrible thing. I regret to say that there has been some very limited expression of this monstrous evil among us. It is something that cannot be countenanced or tolerated. The Lord Himself said, "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea" (Matthew 18:6).

That’s very strong language from the Prince of Peace, the Son of God.

I quote from our Handbook of Instructions: "The Church’s position is that abuse cannot be tolerated in any form. Those who abuse ... are subject to Church discipline. They should not be given Church callings and may not have a temple recommend. Even if a person who abused a child sexually or physically receives Church discipline and is later restored to full fellowship or readmitted by baptism, leaders should not call the person to any position working with children or youth unless the First Presidency authorizes removal of the annotation of the person’s membership record.

"In instances of abuse, the first responsibility of the Church is to help those who have been abused and to protect those who may be vulnerable to future abuse" (Church Handbook of Instruction, p. 157-158).

For a long period now we have worked on this problem. We have urged bishops, stake presidents, and others to reach out to victims, to comfort them, to strengthen them, to let them know that what happened was wrong, that the experience was not their fault, and that it need never happen again.

We have issued publications, established a telephone line where Church officers may receive counsel in handling cases and offered professional help through LDS Family Services.

These acts are often criminal in their nature. They are punishable under the law. Professional counselors, including lawyers and social workers, are available on this help line to advise bishops and stake presidents concerning their obligations in these circumstances. Those in other nations should call their respective area presidents.

 

And occasional news stories like this one from 2016: Church Marks National Child Abuse Prevention Month

  Quote

Sister Oscarson presented a $100,000 donation to Teresa Huizar, executive director of the National Children’s Alliance, the national association and accrediting body for children’s advocacy centers, and a $25,000 check from the Church to Susanne Mitchell, director of the Children’s Justice Centers in Salt Lake County.

[anatess2]

And Sam Young had a long list of grievances against the Church, one of which is his grievance that he doesn't get the same authority as the prophet when he paid all those tithes.  He simply focused on the Bishop Interviews because that's the grievance that went viral.  So, it puts to question his motives on why he went on this particular activism - is it really for the children or is it for his self-aggrandizement, especially as he didn't show any softening when the Church leaders responded to his grievance with a list of things they are doing to address his grievance which included changes in policy.

[Guest MormonGator]

32 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Upon watching his saga, I personally disagree with you here.  The longer and longer he protracts this out, the more and more I see a man loving the fame and just using the idea of protecting kids to propagate his own fame.  

I could be wrong, that's for sure. I can't read the minds or the motives of Sam Young. 

Edited September 12, 2018 by MormonGator

[Jane_Doe]

24 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I could be wrong, that's for sure. I can't read the minds or the motives of Sam Young. 

Same.  We are all just people watching from the sidelines with limited visibility.  

[estradling75]

27 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I could be wrong, that's for sure. I can't read the minds or the motives of Sam Young. 

You can't read the minds or motives... but you can judge actions...  To me his actions call into question his stated motives and intent.

 

 

[NeuroTypical]

Honestly, I'm just happy to seize any opportunity to spread good information about how to avoid, spot, deter, and stop child abuse.  The links I posted above are full of good information.

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, estradling75 said:

You can't read the minds or motives... but you can judge actions...  To me his actions call into question his stated motives and intent.

Of course you can judge actions, and to me his actions show that he has good intentions, however misguided they might be. 

To be very clear, I'm not saying he doesn't deserve to be excommunicated, and like I mentioned before, I could be way off. It's just the impression that I get from him. 

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

[Mod: really dude?]

LOL

[estradling75]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

Of course you can judge actions, and to me his actions show that he has good intentions, however misguided they might be. 

To be very clear, I'm not saying he doesn't deserve to be excommunicated, and like I mentioned before, I could be way off. It's just the impression that I get from him. 

To me the list of grievances he has shows him looking for something to get traction with.  The fact this this the only one that went viral  and when it did he dropped all other issues he claimed to have to focus on this one.   Shows me that viralness is all he cared about the issue is secondary.  Had something else went viral he would be all about that instead of protecting kids.  That and the fact that he refuses to acknowledge that the Church has addressed his concern repeatedly and in many ways, reinforces this.  If he truly cared about protecting kids he would be all over what he church has already done.

 

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

To me the list of grievances he has shows him looking for something to get traction with.  The fact this this the only one that went viral  and when it did he dropped all other issues he claimed to have to focus on this one.   Shows me that viralness is all he cared about the issue is secondary.  Had something else went viral he would be all about that instead of protecting kids.  That and the fact that he refuses to acknowledge that the Church has addressed his concern repeatedly and in many ways, reinforces this.  If he truly cared about protecting kids he would be all over what he church has already done.

 

That's where I disagree. If he just wanted attention he would have found other ways to do it. I think he truly does care about kids and their safety. To repeat myself (Because I do not wish to be misunderstood) I am not saying he went about it the right way, I'm not saying he shouldn't be excommunicated or disfellowshipped. But I can't say that his motives were anything less than protecting children. 

[estradling75]

9 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

That's where I disagree. If he just wanted attention he would have found other ways to do it.

I disagree with your assessment and the facts of his prior actions support me in this.   He tried other ways to get attention...  He documented such on his website (which I will not link to due to rules)...  Those other ways failed to get attention like this one has.   His prior history of going after the church is posted for all to see.  I choose not to ignore his history as a bad faith actor.

 

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, estradling75 said:

I disagree with your assessment

You know what would be fun? If you and I were in the same ward and we became home teaching companions. Guaranteed comedy. 

[estradling75]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

You know what would be fun? If you and I were in the same ward and we became home teaching companions. Guaranteed comedy. 

Dude....  I thought you were hip and current.... home teaching is so dated now..  We'd be ministering companions

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, estradling75 said:

 I thought you were hip and current

If you think I'm hip and current, I'd hate to see who you think is not hip and current! 😉

Edited September 12, 2018 by MormonGator

[estradling75]

8 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

If you think I'm hip and current, I'd hate to see who you think is not hip and current! 😉

That is an easy one....   ME.  I have a hip (two really) and sometimes I play with current.. but I know I am neither...

[Fether]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

You can't read the minds or motives... but you can judge actions...  To me his actions call into question his stated motives and intent.

 

 

The biggest tell for people like Sam Young is the actual following. The same people “supporting” Jeremy Runnels and and McKenna Denson are also “supporting” Sam Young. These people are also the same people seeking to “Expose Mormonism”

[LePeel]

Here's an article from News Week: MORMON BISHOP SAM YOUNG FACING EXCOMMUNICATION FOR WANTING TO STOP SEXUALLY EXPLICIT INTERVIEWS OF CHILDREN.

That's why you should keep your grievances with the church, within the church. The world never did treat Zion fairly, and it probably never will.

[Just_A_Guy]

Personally, I’m in favor of anything and anyone that erodes the support system a culturally conservative kid might lean on in her or his personal quest to remain out of the sexual marketplace.  Let’s make it so that the only adults who can talk to kids about sex are therapists, teachers, judges, doctors, abortionists, and others who are professionally or legally prohibited from encouraging celibacy.

 

 

 

 

 

/sarcasm

Edited September 12, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[lostinwater]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Personally, I’m in favor of anything and anyone that erodes the support system a culturally conservative kid might lean on in her or his personal quest to remain out of the sexual marketplace.  Let’s make it so that the only adults who can talk to kids about sex are therapists, teachers, judges, doctors, abortionists, and others who are professionally or legally prohibited from encouraging celibacy.

/sarcasm

Honestly curious as to your opinion - especially given you work with this kind of thing on a day to day basis and are far closer to it than me.

i am not against letting ecclesiastical leaders help someone keep the law of chastity, but my experience has been that anything other than a "yes, i keep the law of chastity" sends everyone into a incredibly explicit rabbit hole.  And it's often a rabbit hole that nobody wants to go down, but everyone feels like they have to go down.

Or sometimes the bishop just skips right to the explicit topics (certainly not saying every bishop does this, but i don't think it's all that rare).

i haven't just read horror stories about what happens - like the most ridiculously explicit stuff - but i know some of the people in these horror stories.  

i don't know that i have a good answer that works for everyone, but speaking from your experience, how should bishops handle someone who says "No, i haven't kept the law of chastity."  How should that conversation go from there?

Edited September 13, 2018 by lostinwater

[mrmarklin]

Regardless the merits of Young or his gripes, I believe the Church will soon prohibit one on one interviews with our youth. 

Just too much legal liability. 

Edited September 13, 2018 by mrmarklin

[Vort]

23 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

Just too much legal liability. 

What legal liability do you perceive?

[Anddenex]

In our New Testament I find the interaction between Christ and Peter an enlightening dialogue when Jesus was prophesying of his own atonement and Peter said, "Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee."

The Lord responded with, "But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."

In the case with Sam Young, I would assume the Lord would be saying the same thing to him right now, "Get thee behind me, Satan."

Sam Young is interfering with important interviews with our youth. It really doesn't matter how good or how pure his motives are. Peter's motives were good (the irony though is that his motives weren't really "good" as pertaining to the will and pleasure of God), at least in a worldly perspective. I mean, who would want someone to die? His good intentions, no matter how pure, were met with the following word, "Get thee behind me, Satan."

IMHO, Sam Young is weak in mind and spirit; otherwise he wouldn't be creating a commotion with something the Church is already handling correctly. These are the last days and the adversary will use the elect to fulfill his purposes, in this thing, Sam Young is fulfilling the will and pleasure of the adversary.

I would say Sam Young is modern day Sherem, and I hope he repents before he is fully in the adversaries chains.

 

Edited September 13, 2018 by Anddenex