Page 1 of 1
My theory on Sam Young
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:19 am
by 1smartdodog
It is my conspiracy theory that Sam was exed because all those leaders were guilty themselves of what Sam was trying to stop. That is grilling kids and women on their sexual practices. It probably hit a little to close to home him pointing out the problem.
Re: My theory on Sam Young
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:23 am
by Not Buying It
1smartdodog wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:19 am
It is my conspiracy theory that Sam was exed because all those leaders were guilty themselves of what Sam was trying to stop. That is grilling kids and women on their sexual practices. It probably hit a little to close to home him pointing out the problem.
Of course a lot of them have done asked inappropriate questions in interviews. All bishops I had as a youth did. It's an icky practice, many of them did it, and they are doing their damndest to squelch any talk of changing it.
Re: My theory on Sam Young
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:39 am
by jfro18
I am sure some of them asked really awful questions, and there's no doubt that some of the top leaders think that it's perfectly OK to do so.
But I really think he was exed because his movement was getting a lot of attention, and the moment they exed him it was a clear message to members that he was to be ignored and forgotten about.
I could be too cynical here, but I think they know that at least the core membership will do whatever they say, and in this case they felt it was better to cut him off now before it started to draw out more questions.
Re: My theory on Sam Young
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:44 pm
by Palerider
Anybody know the real history on this interview and worthiness concept? When did it start?
I imagine Joseph was making his own personal judgments about who he could trust with certain information but I'm curious if members needed an interview before going through the Nauvoo temple? Was this something that Brigham started after they moved out west?
Just reading section 72 of the D&C it looks as if Elders were required to "make an accounting" to the Bishop and the Bishop could give them a "certificate" of recommendation that would verify their standing to another Bishop. But this seems to deal more with temporal donations and their being a reflection of worthiness than anything else.
There's certainly nothing that infers a need for children to make an accounting of their sexual purity to a Bishop. I'm sure some well read apologist out there could show me where it says that Bishops are to see that there is no iniquity in the church, but I don't have time to look for it right now. Maybe later.
Re: My theory on Sam Young
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:18 pm
by FiveFingerMnemonic
In Ohio, recommends to go to Zion in Missouri were the first thing to start the practice of bishops judging folks. But I don't think the modern practice of having specific questions for a temple recommend started until the Utah reformation period under Brigham Young. Block teachers also had a crazy list of questions about murder, stealing livestock, personal hygene, coveting your neighbors wives, etc.
https://exploringmormonism.com/bishops- ... -timeline/
Re: My theory on Sam Young
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:49 pm
by wtfluff
On top of all of this: Where are there any scriptural references that say one needs to "confess their sins" to the IT guy who lives down the street?
Re: My theory on Sam Young
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 4:43 pm
by BriansThoughtMirror
jfro18 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:39 am
But I really think he was exed because his movement was getting a lot of attention, and the moment they exed him it was a clear message to members that he was to be ignored and forgotten about.
Yep, and it works, too! Once a person has been labeled apostate, they instantly lose all credibility with the faithful and become servants of Satan. They are dangerous and should be avoided. You should never listen to them and certainly never consider what they have to say!
Re: My theory on Sam Young
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:01 pm
by Hagoth
1smartdodog wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:19 am
It is my conspiracy theory that Sam was exed because all those leaders were guilty themselves of what Sam was trying to stop. That is grilling kids and women on their sexual practices. It probably hit a little to close to home him pointing out the problem.
I can only imagine what an interview would be like for a kid who admitted to being gay in an interview with Kimball, Packer, or Oaks.
Re: My theory on Sam Young
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:24 pm
by Just This Guy
Sam Young had the audacity of publicly embarrassing the church leadership and not prostrating himself to their divine presence. I think it is the simple fact that he refused to back down. They tried throwing him a bone with a minor change and he dared to tell them it was not good enough. That is what did him in. He didn't cower before them like they thought he should.
Re: My theory on Sam Young
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 8:08 pm
by Palerider
FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:18 pm
In Ohio, recommends to go to Zion in Missouri were the first thing to start the practice of bishops judging folks. But I don't think the modern practice of having specific questions for a temple recommend started until the Utah reformation period under Brigham Young. Block teachers also had a crazy list of questions about murder, stealing livestock, personal hygene, coveting your neighbors wives, etc.
https://exploringmormonism.com/bishops- ... -timeline/
Thanks for this! Really interesting reading. It shows how through the years these guys couldn't make up their minds which way they were going as far as what was proper behavior and what wasn't, or which questions should or shouldn't be asked.
We mention Bishop roulette here from time to time, but I'm convinced by reading this it happens at all levels of the church. RMN and his new policies are nothing more than the latest iteration of leadership's personal preferences.
No revelation involved whatsoever. It's a joke...a bad joke and it's on the poor b@$+@rd$ paying 10% of their hard earned money to the unworthy.
Re: My theory on Sam Young
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 3:59 am
by Dravin
What I love is the plaintive TBM cry of, "But the sanctity of muh temple!" As if it isn't just chock full of people who simply lie or pivot around the interview questions. They didn't go back and redo batches of temple ordinances when they find out some guy who was having an affair attended, so I'm unsure why a teen touching themselves or getting frisky is this great threat that must be protected against by, in the best case, grooming them for sexual abuse.
Re: My theory on Sam Young
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:07 am
by Not Buying It
Dravin wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 3:59 am
What I love is the plaintive TBM cry of, "But the sanctity of muh temple!" As if it isn't just chock full of people who simply lie or pivot around the interview questions. They didn't go back and redo batches of temple ordinances when they find out some guy who was having an affair attended, so I'm unsure why a teen touching themselves or getting frisky is this great threat that must be protected against by,
in the best case, grooming them for sexual abuse.
I thInk this is an important point - hundreds of “unworthy” members go into temples every single day. All they have to do is lie. Bishops ask these inappropriate questions of youth behind closed doors and the temple still gets “defiled” - it is all for nothing. Absolutely nothing. All that psychological harm for nothing.
Re: My theory on Sam Young
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 7:03 am
by Hagoth
Wow, people weren't even kept out of the temple for alcohol and tobacco until the 1930s and the formal interview questions didn't materialize until the '60s.
Another fascinating tidbit is that the earliest Word of Wisdom interviews were about eating meat, not drinking and smoking.
Re: My theory on Sam Young
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:11 am
by moksha
The bishop interview seems like a bit of melding between the Catholic confessional and the techniques used by a district attorney writing a column for Penthouse Letters. I've read that there really is no direct equivalent between this COJCOLDS practice and that of any other faith tradition.
Re: My theory on Sam Young
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:23 am
by moksha
5 May, 1898 – The First Presidency and Twelve discussed the Word of Wisdom. One member read, from the twelfth volume of the Journal of Discourses, a statement by Brigham Young that seemed to support the notion that the Word of Wisdom was a commandment of God. Lorenzo Snow, then President of the Council of the Twelve agreed, saying that he believed the Word of Wisdom was a commandment and that it should be carried out to the letter.
There was no definite action except to prohibit eating too much meat, urging members within the immediate vicinity to send their porterhouse steaks to the Brethren in order to avoid this temptation of eating too much meat. http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-conte ... N03_80.pdf
Re: My theory on Sam Young
Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2018 12:11 pm
by crossmyheart
Hagoth wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 7:03 am
Wow, people weren't even kept out of the temple for alcohol and tobacco until the 1930s and the formal interview questions didn't materialize until the '60s.
Another fascinating tidbit is that the earliest Word of Wisdom interviews were about eating meat, not drinking and smoking.
My guess is that it probably devolved even more with McArthyism. All of the suspicion and judging in the 40's and 50's also created the perfect storm for the pressure to conform and to look and play the perfect Mormon. Leaders probably felt it was their civic duty to root out evil.