by

I’m going to wade into the waters of the Sam Young excommunication. Let me suggest that telling the truth about the church is not what got him excommunicated.

Sam Young drew attention to a point on which few would disagree: that it is awkward, inappropriate, and even dangerous to have ecclesiastical leaders question minor children on sexual matters without a parent present. The church appears to have largely conceded that point, giving leaders flexibility on how interviews are conducted and affording parents the opportunity to be present during these interviews. So if the church pretty much agreed with Young, why was he excommunicated?

In my opinion, what we fear in this church is not necessarily truth-telling, or change, or even public expressions or protests. What we fear is ceding control and authority, destabilizing our structure. This organization depends on a few cultural elements for its ongoing survival, and hierarchy is part of that culture. Sam Young was able, quite safely, to decry the practice of bishops’ interviews. What was the line he crossed that brought him into church discipline and excommunication? Quite simply, it was his refusal to stop when his local leaders asked him to stop. It has little to do with his activities and everything to do with his disregard (perceived or real) for the order of the church.

We can question — and maybe we should question — the original decision of his leaders to intervene and ask him to desist with his protests and his collaboration with notorious enemies of the church. Perhaps his leaders thought that they were acting in his best interests, to help him back away from a precipice of being antagonistic to the church and to return to regular activity. Perhaps they thought they were acting to protect the rest of the flock from someone they saw as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Perhaps the old whispers are true, and Central Command asked for Young’s head. We will never know why they decided to act. But once they did, they started Young down a path where his refusal to comply became the cornerstone of discipline against him.

This is the cardinal sin within Mormonism, for activists: failing to recognize the authority of leaders. You can say whatever you want, act as you please. But when your leaders call you to heel, you best step in line. This is because our church depends on this authority from top to bottom. It is infused in our culture and our discourse. Presiding authority is commemorated in our church programs. Authority and “keys” are invoked in almost every meeting, every week. Even the act Young decried, bishops’ interviews, are an exercise in authority. So, Young’s refusal to comply with leadership goes right to the heart of the contemporary church. The public spectacle engineered around his discipline is only further evidence of the central offense [1]. Young demonstrated that his movement was more important to him than perceived loyalty to the institution.

I’m sympathetic to Young’s stated purpose — who isn’t? Everyone wants to protect children, everyone wants to improve their lives. I’m also sympathetic to church leaders who want to protect the church and to help members. Personally, I think his excommunication was stupid. Asking folks to obey authority like some Abrahamic test is stupid. I also think it’s stupid to make excommunication into a public stunt. Church discipline shouldn’t be auto-da-fé theater where we all show much we are driven by our fear. Everyone loses.

——————————–

[1] This, incidentally, is part of why appeals within the disciplinary process are doomed to failure. If your offense is a failure to respect authority, isn’t an appeal a further act of noncompliance?

Update: I can’t monitor this thread, so I’m turning off comments. Thanks for your thoughts.