DiscussMormonism.com

mentalgymnast wrote:

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:If you want a pretty good snapshot of how current Ziontologists view Sam Young and what he's doing please read this article and the subsequent comments section:

https://www.millennialstar.org/guest-po ... lly-after/

Oh my gosh. If half of this stuff is true I'm surprised the church waited as long as it did before bringing him into a disciplinary court. He apparently had multiple opportunities to repent and change his ways.

Yes, he had several opportunities to talk with church leaders (to no avail), and then keep his thoughts to himself. But he couldn't get the images of abused children out of his mind and Satan got a hold of him and made him go public.

I was wondering why when he stripped his shirt off in the little video he made that he produced a bare chest. Now we know.

This guy was full on apostate before he ever 'hit the street' recently.

Regards,
MG

Are you comfortable in your "white" tower now that you have written Sam off as a "black" apostate?

Sam doesn't have the capacity for mental gymnastics that you have. Like many he faces the enormous problems on every front. You believe because you choose to believe in spite of the evidence. For you dubious Wordprint studies trump the complete absence of evidence for the existence of Book of Mormon people.

At the very least have the decency to acknowledge that it isn't just black and white, good and evil. You know its not that simple. We all know you chose to believe because you knew the real consequences of choosing integrity over compliance. Saved by Wordprint studies. You have got to be kidding.

Rosebud wrote:It's endless. Little boys alll of them.

Hey Rosy baby! How about giving me a little kiss!

Shulem wrote:Mentalgymnast, I think you favor Mormon bishops molesting children. I really, really do. I think you wholeheartedly approve of this practice. I think you are a wolf and a predator of some sort but I can't put my finger on it, yet. Prove me wrong and check the boxes that apply:

Mormon bishops must never ask the following from children:

[ ] Do you masturbate?
[ ] Do you know what a vagina is?
[ ] What were you thinking of while you masturbated?
[ ] When was the last time you watched pornography?
[ ] What type of pornography do you watch?
[ ] Do you masturbate while you watch pornography?
[ ] Where and how did your boyfriend touch you?
[ ] Where your nipples hard?
[ ] Did you get wet?
[ ] Where were his fingers?
[ ] Where was your underwear?
[ ] What color were your panties ?
[ ] Did you orgasm?
[ ] Did you know that once boys reach a certain level of arousal, they have no choice but to keep going, that they can no longer stop their sexual advances?
[ ] Have you ever put your penis in another boy’s anus and if so, did you like it?
[ ] Describe the sexual positions you engaged in?
[ ] Did you engage in oral sex?
[ ] Did she orgasm?
[ ] Did you ejaculate?
[ ] How many times did he ejaculate?
[ ] Where did he ejaculate?
[ ] Did you engage in anal sex?
[ ] Did the boy ejaculate in your mouth?
[ ] Did you put your mouth on her vagina, or use your fingers?
[ ] Did he touch your breasts?
[ ] Did you touch his penis?
[ ] Did he penetrate you?
[ ] To a rape victim:
[ ] Did you like it?
[ ] What did you do to egg him on?
[ ] What were you wearing?
[ ] Did you orgasm?

It wouldn't surprise me if MG could check all of these boxes. Probably twice on "were your nipples hard?" And 2.5 times on "did he penetrate you?"

Rosebud wrote:And in the meantime, I'm going to record history because while all of you (on both sides) fight to prove you're important, the people downstream from the fighting get hurt.

That's what NOvember 2015 was all about: egocentric men wanting to be heroes in history and pushing so hard for their place in time that the vulnerable people got retaliated against.

You’re right though. It really does seem to be that way doesn’t it? In these recent rounds of ex communications, most involved egocentric men desiring to be martyrs and to make some sort of name for themselves. Unfortunately, while they’re chasing sellf-worth, others are getting hurt. IMHO, that’s a very profound statement you just posted.

Rosebud wrote: Look at what all these Mormon men are doing: Hales, Dehlin, Young, Craig Paxton, Shulem..... they're all trying to win some stupid prize. Watch them. As Mormon kids the importance of making it to the top of the righteous superiority and worthiness chain was entrenched in our minds. Getting out of the cult means really leaving the whole TR paradigm behind.... and leaving behind the need to crush the people who are judging you for not being as superior as they are. You see this all over in Hales' sickeningly condescending language. He's sure he's on the path to heaven while supporting abuse.

The ex-Mormon men don't care if Young or Dehln or anyone else is "choosing the right." They care about whether or not thier side wins the superiority fight. And the Mormon men like Hales don't care if Brigham Young, Joseph Smith, or Richard G. Scott were predators. They care about their side winning the superiority fight.

It's endless. Little boys alll of them.

So it is a male thing?

Kate Kelly, Parker, Julianne, Jersey Girl, Lemme, msjack, ROSEBUD...none of them fit the pattern...because they are female?

PS. You forgot to include Bill Reel in your list with Dehlin, craig, and Sam etc.

The ex-Mormon men don't care if Young or Dehln or anyone else is "choosing the right."

Wow. That is a pretty big blanket you just threw down, don't you think?

A difference of opinion with the Brethren is only valid if it is expressed by a member in good standing. To remain a member in good standing you musn’t express a difference of opinion with the Brethren.

Here’s an example of the Churchs’ Propaganda team reinforcing the Catch 22 above.

Why has a Houston-area church leader called a local disciplinary council for Sam Young, a former church bishop? It isn't because Young wanted the church to end sexually explicit interviews of children, as he said and a Newsweek headline stated, according to a church official.

Instead, Houston Texas South Stake President David Frank Hruska said the disciplinary council will consider whether Young is in apostasy based on reports that he has repeatedly acted in "clear, open and deliberate public opposition to the church or its leaders," according to the notice Hruska gave Young. The church considers disciplinary councils to be private. Young posted Hruska's notice on his blog.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900 ... aints.html
Do you see it?

The question should by, why does Sam’s membership status decrease the value of his opinion? If religious institutions were left to operate the way they wished, without external influence, the Catholic Church would still be covering up sexual abuses by clergy - something the LDS Church is still doing.

Young said he gathered more than 3,000 stories of abuse and sexually explicit interviews into 15 bound books . They were hand delivered to church headquarters with nearly 1,000 marchers.

And still the Church won’t stop the sexually explicit interviews. How many abuses of children directly or indirectly is considered a price worth paying for the continuation of these interviews?

cwald wrote:

Rosebud wrote: Look at what all these Mormon men are doing: Hales, Dehlin, Young, Craig Paxton, Shulem..... they're all trying to win some stupid prize. Watch them. As Mormon kids the importance of making it to the top of the righteous superiority and worthiness chain was entrenched in our minds. Getting out of the cult means really leaving the whole TR paradigm behind.... and leaving behind the need to crush the people who are judging you for not being as superior as they are. You see this all over in Hales' sickeningly condescending language. He's sure he's on the path to heaven while supporting abuse.

The ex-Mormon men don't care if Young or Dehln or anyone else is "choosing the right." They care about whether or not thier side wins the superiority fight. And the Mormon men like Hales don't care if Brigham Young, Joseph Smith, or Richard G. Scott were predators. They care about their side winning the superiority fight.

It's endless. Little boys alll of them.

So it is a male thing?

Kate Kelly, Parker, Juilann, Jersey Girl, Lemme, msjack, ROSEBUD...none of them fit the pattern...because they are female?

PS. You forgot to include Bill Reel in your list with Dehlin, craig, and Sam etc.

The ex-Mormon men don't care if Young or Dehln or anyone else is "choosing the right."

Wow. That is a pretty big blanket you just threw down, don't you think?

Okay, agreed. KK belongs on the list and a lot of ex-Mormon men don't. Yes, almost all blanket statements are false, including mine. But no, I don't see the pattern in all the people you listed. I will be more careful with my blanket statements in the future.

To add some understanding of my paradigm. I view humans as animals who display behaviors related to our evolutionary predispositions. I see a lot of male rutting behaviors in this debate over "spiritual wifery" (or whatever it is).

I see different behaviors in females that also align with our biological evolutionary heritage: usually trying to find protection from the rutt by siding with the winning males. The female voices in this debate are fewer and more quiet. The alpha females are generally different.... less likely to follow along with whichever alpha male seems to be winning at present.

i think Mormonsim makes a hell of a lot more sense when viewed from an evolutionary perspective. We're little more than another odd manifestation of what happens in a culture when a group of people are working to survive a tough climate in isolation and spread their genes to the next generation. We just happened to have quite the unique historical niche coming out of 19th-century New England and moving to an isolated desert in the Great American West during manifest destiny.

A strange little aberration of humanity certainly resulted.

I have a question wrote:A difference of opinion with the Brethren is only valid if it is expressed by a member in good standing. To remain a member in good standing you musn’t express a difference of opinion with the Brethren.

Here’s an example of the Churchs’ Propaganda team reinforcing the Catch 22.

Why has a Houston-area church leader called a local disciplinary council for Sam Young, a former church bishop? It isn't because Young wanted the church to end sexually explicit interviews of children, as he said and a Newsweek headline stated, according to a church official.

Instead, Houston Texas South Stake President David Frank Hruska said the disciplinary council will consider whether Young is in apostasy based on reports that he has repeatedly acted in "clear, open and deliberate public opposition to the church or its leaders," according to the notice Hruska gave Young. The church considers disciplinary councils to be private. Young posted Hruska's notice on his blog.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900 ... aints.html
Do you see it?

The question should by, why does Sam’s membership status decrease the value of his opinion? If religious institutions were left to operate the way they wished, without external influence, the Catholic Church would still be covering up sexual abuses by clergy - something the LDS Church is still doing.

Young said he gathered more than 3,000 stories of abuse and sexually explicit interviews into 15 bound books . They were hand delivered to church headquarters with nearly 1,000 marchers.

And still the Church won’t stop the sexually explicit interviews. How many abuses of children directly or indirectly is considered a price worth paying for the continuation of these interviews?

Yup. This is what keeps it all going.

Anytime language is used that supports this paradigm, the cult is supported.

Anytime a media blitz uses "worthiness" to add to its credibility, the church can perpetuate its "worthiness" system by changing the "worthiness" status of the person who was speaking.

Anytime people refuse to reinforce this paradigm, it loses its influence over people's minds.

"Jersey, did he tell you that you couldn't be friends with me?"

That's what my friend asked me when I called her after my meeting with my youth pastor. That's the question that landed me on RFM, then lds-mormon.com, ZLMB and here.

I had gotten a call from her the day before after she dropped off one of my kids after a Wednesday evening youth group at my church, after Girl's activity at her church. We alternated transportation for Wednesdays. Only that afternoon she called me upset with her kid crying in the background and as she told me how her daughter was upset because an adult in my church said "Mormons don't believe in God", I could hear her daughter yelling "All those Baptists are bitches!!!".

And I wasn't having it. I told her to hang up. I immediately called my church to arrange a meeting with the youth pastor for the next day. When I reported back to her, I didn't tell her that he said that the goal of LDS women was to become eternal incubators or that Mormons wear magic underwear. Those are the exact phrases that he used.

And when he told me that Mormons don't believe in the same God that we do, I said "If that is true and if you believe we have the truth, how do you expect to share the truth with LDS in this community when you send their kids home crying?" That part I told her.

That one caught him up short. After a long pause, he told me that I was right. That the adult was wrong and did I think it would help if he or the adult offered an apology. I told him that I didn't think that anything would help right now but I'd let him know if my thinking changed on that. I told her this as well.

But that question she asked me sent off alarms in my head. Why did she think my pastor could forbid me to be friends with her? Is it because her Bishop could do that to her? So I set off on a journey to prove my pastor wrong and find out what she meant by that.

While my own efforts aren't as large as Sam Young's efforts, I know what it's like to stand up for a child to your own religious leader and I definitely "get" Sam Young. I get how the thought of one child (much less thousands of children) hurting can lead you to go off on a journey that you never expected. I've devoted most of my adult life to children. I never once expected that after that meeting with the youth pastor that nearly twenty years later, I'd be on a board like this in a community like this writing about a child advocate whose church wants to excommunicate him for standing up for the well being of children in his church.

I have nothing but the highest respect for Sam Young. His meeting is yet to come.

Jersey Girl wrote:"Jersey, did he tell you that you couldn't be friends with me?"

That's what my friend asked me when I called her after my meeting with my youth pastor. That's the question that landed me on RFM, then lds-mormon.com, ZLMB and here.

I had gotten a call from her the day before after she dropped off one of my kids after a Wednesday evening youth group at my church, after Girl's activity at her church. We alternated transportation for Wednesdays. Only that afternoon she called me upset with her kid crying in the background and as she told me how her daughter was upset because an adult in my church said "Mormons don't believe in God", I could hear her daughter yelling "All those Baptists are bitches!!!".

And I wasn't having it. I told her to hang up. I immediately called my church to arrange a meeting with the youth pastor for the next day. When I reported back to her, I didn't tell her that he said that the goal of LDS women was to become eternal incubators or that Mormons wear magic underwear. Those are the exact phrases that he used.

And when he told me that Mormons don't believe in the same God that we do, I said "If that is true and if you believe we have the truth, how do you expect to share the truth with LDS in this community when you send their kids home crying?" That part I told her.

That one caught him up short. After a long pause, he told me that I was right. That the adult was wrong and did I think it would help if he or the adult offered an apology. I told him that I didn't think that anything would help right now but I'd let him know if my thinking changed on that. I told her this as well.

But that question she asked me sent off alarms in my head. Why did she think my pastor could forbid me to be friends with her? Is it because her Bishop could do that to her? So I set off on a journey to prove my pastor wrong and find out what she meant by that.

While my own efforts aren't as large as Sam Young's efforts, I know what it's like to stand up for a child to your own religious leader and I definitely "get" Sam Young. I get how the thought of one child (much less thousands of children) hurting can lead you to go off on a journey that you never expected. I've devoted most of my adult life to children. I never once expected that after that meeting with the youth pastor that nearly twenty years later, I'd be on a board like this in a community like this writing about a child advocate whose church wants to excommunicate him for standing up for the well being of children in his church.

I have nothing but the highest respect for Sam Young. His meeting is yet to come.

Actions have many incentives and many effects, some intended and some not intended. Some effects are predominantly beneficial, some are predominantly detrimental. Sam's actions will have many varied effects. Some people are more self-aware of their true incentives than others.

In general, I'm less interested in people's characters (most of us are gray, not black or white) than incentives and effects.

Speaking with no intention to generalize to Sam or any other individual, I could tell more than one story about child predators who publicly fight child predation because one of the effects is a spectacular coverup. Again, of course I am not meaning for this statement to refer to Sam. I'm repeating this for clarity.