Stokes Sounds Off: My Response to the Public Outcry Relating to Sam Young's Excommunication

Search This Blog

Top Leaderboard

Monday, September 17, 2018

My Response to the Public Outcry Relating to Sam Young's Excommunication

Hello again, everyone! While I continue to welcome and appreciate any comments on any post I have previously done, and while I do not want to draw attention away from all the significant things that are happening in the Church, I wanted to take an opportunity to "sound off" in response to the somewhat vituperative public outcry against the Church in the matter of Sam Young's excommunication.

First, a review: Sam Young, a former bishop, raised some concerns he had about the Church's policies and procedures relating to interviewing youth and children. But he took the expression of his concerns to an unhealthy level, going on a "hunger strike" that lasted several weeks, and going so far as to say that he would not join the Church today knowing what he knows now, that he would discourage others from joining, and that the Church was willfully protecting those who were conducting themselves in a questionable manner. He further claimed to have a list of several hundred "highly inappropriate" questions which he said others had submitted to him based on their own experiences or that of their families in interviews with Church leaders.

When Sam Young received word that he had been excommunication through the action of a Church disciplinary council, despite his earlier expressed attitude about the climate of the Church and the fact that he would not join it today, and would discourage others from joining as well, he expressed bitter disappointment in his leaders' decision to excommunicate him. Although he lives out of state, he made a trip to the grounds of the Salt Lake Temple to read that letter aloud in front of a crowd. The letter said the reason for this action was his coming out in rebellion against the Church and its' leaders and not correcting course as he had repeatedly been invited to do so. But Young claimed that the one and only reason was his effort to protect the children and youth of the Church.

The action taken by his local leaders, on which the general Church leaders would not offer an opinion, has led to public outrage from many who side with his claim that he was just trying to protect children and youth, and say that if such questions as are on the list Young had were being asked in interviews, that would indeed be inappropriate. There was also outcry about the fact (as some claimed) that his local leaders took this action in retaliation for him having the courage to speak his mind. There were also claims that general Church leadership only changed their policies on children and youth interviews as a result of the concerns he expressed, so many wondered why that would lead to his excommunication.

I have so many problems with this whole scenario. First, the issue was not his efforts to protect the children and youth, but rather his remarks about discouraging others from joining and being ashamed to be a member of a Church that would allow the kind of questions on the list he had. He also publicly encouraged others to decline to sustain leaders of the Church.

Second, bishop's interviews are supposed to be confidential, and if anyone had a problem with any questions they were asked in any given interview, the proper way to handle the matter would be to take it up with the next leader in the chain of command in the Church. And if the questions tended to be the kind that would make someone uncomfortable, there are proper ways to handle that.

Third, although not many accounts had been previously shared the "uncomfortable and inappropriate" questions they allegedly been asked during such interviews, it was not until Young started actively campaigning for change on this issue that all of these people suddenly wanted to talk about inappropriate questions they had been asked. If such questions had been asked, and if these people were so bothered by it, why would nothing have been said about it until someone made a big issue of wanting the Church to act on it?

Fourth, the Church had clearly noted in official statements released about this issue that local and general leaders had met with him, reviewed his materials, taken time to understand his concerns, and counsel with him. But he still apparently decided that his protests on the issue would go forward and would bring the change he was expecting.

Fifth, his one big mistake (and that of those defending his actions) is in asserting that the Church did not change procedures until he started raising his concerns. But the Church has been very clear about the fact that when any concern or potential change in doctrine or policy is being considered, if any questions or scenarios arise about which the Brethren have limited or no experience, they solicit the opinion of qualified individuals in those fields to craft informed opinions in the decision-making process.

When mentioning the restructuring of Melchizedek Priesthood Quorums or the replacement of home and visiting teaching with ministering (both were implemented in April), President Nelson indicated that these changes had been "under study for many months". And a similar wording was used in the announcement in late October last year in which the Church noted that the Priesthood and Women's Session would both be held annually.

So for Young to have suggested that the changes to youth interviews were only made when he raised his concerns originally is in direct contradiction to the way things actually work when decisions are made and matters are considered on a general Church level. But the issue goes deeper than that. Some have claimed that for a Church that bears the Savior's name, it is very much contrary to the nature of Christ's character to kick someone out of His Church.

But the Lord has said in modern times that He "cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance", and His admonition during His mortal ministry was for people to "go [their ways] and sin no more." In addition to that, Joseph Smith said this about those who oppose Church policies and its' leaders: "“I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.”

And at a time when apostates in Kirtland tried to suggest that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet and to put someone else in his place, Brigham Young was quoted as follows: "I rose up, and in a plain and forcible manner told them that Joseph was a Prophet and I knew it, and that they might rail and slander him as much as they pleased, [but] they could not destroy the appointment of the Prophet of God; they could only destroy their own authority, cut the thread that bound them to the Prophet and to God, and sink themselves to hell. Many were highly enraged at my decided opposition to their measures."

Following the release of the first Manifesto (which was an official call to end the practice polygamy), Wilford Woodruff said the following: "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty."

The Lord, through Joseph Smith, further said: "When we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man."

I might add that, based on these quotes, the fact that Sam Young kept asserting that his position should be taken more seriously than the official positions of the Church made after thorough consideration of the relevant concerns, and the fact that he persisted in behavior contrary to the counsel of the local and general leaders with whom he met suggests that, despite his previous service as a bishop, he has no understanding of the way Church policies are crafted, and demonstrated a lack of effort to change his behavior and a lack of respect for the counsel of his leaders relating to this issue.

Therefore, the argument that this action was somewhat uncalled for and unjustified seems to me to be somewhat disingenuous at best and blatantly ignorant at worst. Some also claimed that questioning one's leaders would result in one's excommunication without exception. But when the way in which that questioning occurs involves advocating a widespread rejection of the leaders the Lord has called to serve or implying that oneself or a group of individuals knows more about the Lord's will for His Church than those appointed leaders, or suggesting a boycott and rejection of the Church and the doctrines thereof, a line has to be drawn to indicate that is not correct behavior.

I hope that Sam Young will have the sense to realize his error in this matter and will eventually reconcile with the Church and want to rejoin, but part of me has a hard time seeing that as a real possibility given what happened and the way it happened. I want to apologize for getting up on my soapbox about this, but the attitudes that led to this situation unfolding the way it did, along with those who have been so quick to find fault with the way local and general Church leaders handled this issue, really bothers me.

I also hope that the perspective and additional context I have provided on this issue here is helpful to at least some of you who will read it. That does it for this post. Any and all comments are, as always, welcome and appreciated. Thank you for the privilege of your time. If you enjoyed what you read here and would like to stay informed of newly-added content, please feel free to subscribe. Until my next post, I wish each one of you all the best and pray that the Lord will bless you all in everything you do.

10 comments:

  1. This is the matter that I said a couple weeks ago elsewhere in comments here was 'far worse' than a couple other things that have gone on recently. That includes things within the last five years ago including the Ordain Women matter, the Jeremy Runnells matter, and so forth.

    We have these every few years and invariably others fall over the side too, a classic 'wheat and tares' scenario on a small scale. The 1993 matter of the 'intellectuals', which Elder Packer commented on generally in a CES gathering that I was present in and the talk was published on lds.org and is in Gospel Library in the Preservice Readings book in Institute. Most from that matter have since come back.

    One of the other documents that came out just before conference in April was extensive on this subject and otherwise may have been made public because of this had one other significant matter that would show up before another week had passed, 'ministering visits' was in that, 'home teaching' was not, and it only took an instant to put two and two together when ministering was announced in the conference.

    That, and a posting in Mormon Newsroom in July as noted, were widely reported. The July posting even included the relevant portion of Handbook 1 that was put up with that, the standardized questions are the same as the adult temple recommend interview minus some specific to marriage, particularly relating to divorces and child support, and the garments, since youth do not receive the endowment until they are about to leave on missions or get married. While the events earlier were not mentioned, it was made public on mormonnewsroom.org because of the fuss this had raised.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, James Anderson, for taking time to comment. I don't know why so many seem to want to take matters of Church policy into their own hands, and why such people assume and assert that the change for which they are advocating is more harmonious with the Lord's will than the official positions put out by Church leaders who have the authority to decide such matters for the Church.

      It brings to mind the Lord's statement that in the last days, even the very elect would be deceived. And a common problem with those who wind up getting excommunicated for that kind of thinking can leave the Church, but cannot leave the Church alone.

      Perhaps the most infamous example of this from Church history is that of the first President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who first took issue with the fact that the Prophet Joseph Smith called two apostles as the first missionaries to England without consulting him, and then became further disgruntled at the suggestion that his wife was dishonest in an agreement she made with a neighbor to share milk strippings. He lost everything because he sided with his wife above all other opinions, including the confirmed ruling of the First Presidency that his wife as in the wrong.

      The great tragedy in such situations is that the people involved put their pride and private notions above their testimonies that the Brethren of the Church will never lead us astray. It is humbling to hear of people who have taken time to correct their course following excommunication, but disheartening to realize how many others will likely never come back because they feel they are not in the wrong.

      One of many reasons Church leaders have preached against pride and spoken to reiterate the importance of sustaining those called and the decisions that are made is because no one enjoys seeing a Church leader or member on any level losing their Church membership over their beliefs that their personal positions are more harmonious with the Lord's will than the official positions advocated by those the Lord has appointed to lead. But it happens all too often.

      As I said above, i hope Sam Young (and others who have recently been excommunicated) will recognize the error of their ways and seek to come back to full fellowship, but given that the attitudes currently expressed by Sam Young and Kate Kelly, to name a few, show no signs that their positions have changed, it may not be possible for such a reconciliation to occur. Thanks again, James Anderson, for taking time to comment. I always appreciate hearing from you.

      Delete
  2. the only reason we really know about Sam young, is because he made his position and excommunication public. The church did not make any real Public Announcement of his excommunication. I think it was the same with Kate Kelly. the church rarely will make X Communications public unless they were like a high-profile member or general Authority like the former Elder Hamula. And even his case was kept private about the reasons why he was being excommunicated.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I found the quote from Elder Packer.

    "Not too many days ago, in a moment of great concern over a rapid series of events that demonstrated the challenge of those within the Church who have that feeling of criticism and challenge and apostasy, I had an impression, as revelations are. It was strong and it was clear, because lingering in my mind was: “Why? Why—when we need so much to be united?” And there came the answer: “It is permitted to be so now that the sifting might take place, and it will have negligible effect upon the Church.”

    Source: Preservice Readings: REL 470, 471, punlished by the Church but has somehow been orphaned on the lds.org site. The talk was titled 'The Great Plan of Happiness' and that was his favorite of the 15 names for what we generally call the Plan of Salvation. He said something else during that talk that is being done today in at least seminary. He encouraged teachers to teach the Plan of Salvation early in the year, and so they now have a lesson each year during the first week about it no matter which book of scripture they are teaching that year.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you, L. Chris Jones and James Anderson, for taking time to comment further on this issue. If memory serves, the Church did issue an official statement on the matter of Sam Young, but that was well before the matter escalated to the point where he was excommunicated by local leaders.

    The wording of the only statement released by the Church on this issue demonstrated that his local leaders and a general authority took time to meet with him, extend their love and concerns, and review his material. But it appears that he wasn't satisfied with those meetings, and took things into his own hands, which is where the problem lies. And he certainly took his positions to an extreme which made me personally uncomfortable.

    The fact of the matter is, since he is not privy to the discussions occurring at Church headquarters, he is out of line to suggest that the Church did not make any changes until he raised his concerns. And his insistence that his thoughts were more in line with the Lord's thinking than that of Church leaders is definitely out of harmony with what the Lord and various Church leaders have said on that subject.

    James Anderson, I assume that your comment sharing a quote from then-Elder Packer is in reference to the "September Six", about which I have read on Wikipedia (I was only around six or seven when that situation occurred). One major sign that the Second Coming of the Savior is getting closer is that "even the very elect may be deceived". Each of the recent excommunications we have seen of Church members is a reflection of that idea. But the Lord has also promised that the wheat and the tares would be separated, and we are seeing that occur in a big way lately.

    Either way, it is tragic that such individuals did not choose to check themselves and to comply with the wise counsel of Church leaders on all levels which could have saved them from losing their Church membership. My own family has not been immune from that. I have had one or two extended family members who have been subject to Church disciplinary councils for various reasons, and my brother requested that his records be removed from the Church due to some problems he saw with various Church policies that have recently been announced.

    One common element I have noticed with many who have been excommunicated is that they can leave the Church, but they cannot leave the Church alone. Although prophets and apostles have been clear about how any of us can avoid the prospect of personal apostasy, some clearly are not taking that counsel to heart. And that is a tragedy indeed. Thanks again, James Anderson and L. Chris Jones, for taking time to comment.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Its sad when people are excommimicated but very happy when they come back. One of the most spiritual experiences I've ever experienced was witnessing the rebaptism of a formerly excommunicated member.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thank you, Chris, for that additional insight. As i had the chance to read the biographies of several apostles and prophets, i know that many of them talk about what a sacred experience it has been for them to meet with previously-excommunicated individuals, determine their worthiness, and provide a restoration of blessings.

    i vaguely recall being present when someone was baptized sometime after going through the process of excommunication, but I am not sure when that would have been, or if I am even correctly remembering it.

    Although it is a very happy thing when people do come back, sometimes it does take a while, assuming such individuals ever want to come back. I know that these are very personal decisions, but I would hope that many whose excommunications have recently been made public will take time to recognize their missteps and will choose to come back. In the meantime, thanks for this additional comment, Chris! I appreciate hearing from you.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I just wanted to share an additional thought. The discussion of excommunicated individuals has been ongoing as there has, by either necessity or deliberate design, been more public mention of such actions of late. My comment above referencing how some choose not to come back was driven by what I have said in previous conversations about individuals such as Elder Richard R. Lyman, the most recent apostle to have been excommunicated.

    In previous conversations about the case of Brother Lyman, it was mentioned that he did not feel like he could have his blessings restored in this life, but that that process may have been vicariously done
    following his passing.

    I hope that kind of scenario would not apply to those whose disciplinary councils have been made public within the last year or so, but whether it does or not seems to be largely based on the degree to which such individuals seek such reconciliation and the restoration of their blessings, if they feel worthy of it, and if it is determined that they have changed the behavior which led to their excommunication in the first place.

    I, for one, am grateful that I never have and likely never will be asked to sit in on such a council. The Savior is the Perfect Judge who will correctly balance justice and mercy for all of us individually. I am not sure I would trust myself to do the same. hope these additional thoughts are helpful to all who read them.

    ReplyDelete
  8. On the September Six, thafollowed the talk by Elder Packer, he gave it in August of that year and I think there were more than that involved, as I remembered one being in the news a few weeks before Elder Packer said what I posted. I was present in the Marriott Center when he gave that.

    Vicarious work has been done for many who died before they could be rebaptized. The current thing is that when one that has been excommunicated is found in the process of doing family history work, they cannot have their work done unless the First Presidency approves it. We had that come up three or four years ago in my area, one found a recent ancestor who had been excommunicated and they had to do that process.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks for those additional details, James Anderson. Since I was very young at the time the September Six situation emerged, all I know is what I have read about it in resources I have available. I appreciate you filling in the blanks for me.

    That said, I was aware that the First Presidency's approval is needed before a restoration of blessings can be provided to a living person, which is generally done by one of the apostles, but it is interesting to learn that First Presidency approval is also necessary for those dead who were excommunicated and whose relatives want their blessings vicariously restored. That does make sense, though. Thanks for these additional insights.

    ReplyDelete

In addition to my life-long love for the subjects which I cover in the posts of this blog, I have long held the belief that we can disagree without becoming disagreeable. Differences of opinion are natural, while being disagreeable in expressing those differences is not. And in that sense, I have no desire to close the door on anyone who earnestly desires to contribute to the ongoing dialogue on subjects covered in the posts on this blog.

At the same time, however, I recognize that we live in a time when incivility, discourtesy, unkindness, and even cyber-bullying has regrettably become part of online interactions. With that in mind, while anyone who wishes can comment on anything if they choose to do so, I hereby reserve the right to immediately delete any comments which are critical, unkind, lack civility, or promote prodcuts, services, and values contrary to either the Church, or to the rules of online etiquette.

I'd also like to remind all who comment here that I try to respond personally to each individual comment as I feel is appropriate. Such replies are not meant to end the conversation, but to acknowledge earnest feedback as it is submitted.

And in order to better preserve the spirit and pure intentions for which this blog was established, I also hereby request that anyone not commenting with a regular user name (particularly those whose comments appear under the "Unknown" or "Anonymous" monikers, give the rest of us a name to work with in addressing any replies. If such individuals do not wish to disclose their actual given names, a pseudonym or nickname would suffice.

Any comments made by individuals who opt to not give a name by which they can ber identified may, depending on the substance and tone of such comments, be subject to deletion as well. I would respectfully ask that all of us do all we can to keep the dialogue positive, polite, and without malice or ill-will. May the Lord bless us all in our discussion of these important matters.