I don’t know who is going to win the U.S. election. No one does.

What I do know is that there will be good people who vote for each presidential candidate. This may seem obvious, but I think it can be easy to lose sight of in this political climate where the tension is turned up to 11 and the stakes feel so high. I’m not trying to deny or minimize any of that; I just want to suggest that we view our friends, family, and neighbors through a charitable lens in this critical season.

Some of the people that you strongly disagree with could be the ones who would care for you when it really counts. Whether that’s in your home, at the hospital, or in the wide world. You can still question their conclusions or their information sources (we’ve all been victims of disinformation at this point), but try to keep in mind the real good they’re trying to do in your community.

To be perfectly honest, I’ve been thinking about sharing something like this for years — since before the 2020 election. I was tired of the increasingly divisive state of American politics and excited to see it end regardless of who won the election. Then I heard Trump claiming the election would be stolen well-before voting even began and my heart sunk. I didn’t predict January 6th or his third shot at the presidency, but I realized that the thawing political climate I had been dreaming about wasn’t coming.

The groundhog had appeared and forecasted 4 more years of winter.

So this year, I’m writing despite the uncertainty and hoping our political winter won’t last much longer. I hope Americans can accept the results of this election, whatever they may be. This concept may upset some of you who are skeptical of the integrity of our elections, but every audit so far has shown that the process is sound and the results have been reliable. I know that may not mean much to a skeptic, but maybe my personal experience living in a very red state might interest you:

I have many family, friends, and neighbors in my state who have privately confided that they are voting blue. They don’t all do it loudly, because they don’t want to argue; Their convictions are strong even when their volume is quiet. Some of them would surprise you. They have values and lifestyles typically associated with conservatives. Many of them even come from strong republican backgrounds and social circles: they’re choosing conviction over tradition.

Not everyone will agree with their chosen politics, but I hope you can respect their integrity. That integrity comes at a social cost in the current political climate as people are forced to choose between loud arguments or quiet alienation. The cost goes beyond individual social pain; society also pays a price when there is no true discourse between Republicans and Democrats. Ideas are not challenged or refined in echo chambers. It’s not just a problem of too much noise, it’s also a problem of silence.

This silence across ideological divides can lead people to believe that they are the silent majority as they listen to their loud leaders proclaim dominance in their echo chambers. I have heard both democrats and republicans claim to be the quiet majority at different times of my life, but I think the true silent majority is people who are tired of the two party system. I certainly am! I don’t exactly know what it will take to tear it down, but I want to build something better and I hope you’ll join me if the opportunity arises.

If not, I just ask you to view your neighbors with kindness and accept valid election results even if you don’t like them.

Recently a man named Sam Young was excommunicated from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for “publicly opposing the church and its leaders”. He appealed his excommunication with the leaders of the church, but yesterday his appeal was dismissed. I’d like to discuss this a little bit…

Sam Young is the founder of a movement called “Protect LDS Children.” The goal of this group is to end sexually explicit interviews with children and end one-on-one interviews with children altogether. Although we’re accustomed to child interviews in Latter-day Saint culture, it is a potentially unsafe practice that I think we need to re-examine. I support Sam’s cause to protect Latter-day Saint children and I was deeply disappointed to hear that he was excommunicated.

You see, Sam isn’t an apostate or an outsider: He was the opposite. He was an honorable, active, attending, temple-endowed member. He even served as bishop and all accounts say that he did an amazing job caring for his flock. So it’s really no surprise that he decided to defend some of the most vulnerable members of the flock. When he discovered that several of his daughters were asked sexually explicit questions in one-on-one bishop interviews, he started a petition to end these practices. (October 2017) Petition: https://bit.ly/2Dw06fh

These are the potential harms listed on the official petition. They are all actual consequences that have come as a result of real sexually explicit interviews with minors:

1. Suicide.
2. Attempted suicide.
3. Suicidal ideation.
4. Inappropriate shame and guilt.
5. Childhood filled with self loathing.
6. Adulthood filled with self loathing.
7. Normalizing children to sexual questions by adult men. (Grooming)
8. Sexual abuse. (Pedophilia)
9. Impaired sexual relations after marriage.
10. Years of recovery from childhood shaming. Often lasting decades.

I think if we step outside the box, it’s easy to see that these interviews put children in a very vulnerable position. These routine sexual “worthiness” interviews can be conducted with kids and teenagers as young as 7 years old. Even a good, well-meaning bishop asking about the law of chastity, can end up explaining sexual concepts that may be better learned at home. More importantly, this normalizes sexual discussions with adult men, who may basically be a stranger to the child. (ie grooming)

I think that most bishops are probably good men caught in a tricky situation. It’s not ideal for them either. Many would probably rather not ask these questions, especially in a one-on-one setting. After all, the opportunity for misunderstandings and false accusations is very real. Unfortunately the opportunity for actual abuse is real too, and it does happen sometimes. You may say that this never happened to you, but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened to others. You may say that it never happened to your child, your family members or your friends… but have you honestly asked them? Sam Young has via http://protectldschildren.org/ . In fact, Protect LDS Children has collected over 100 stories of straight-up sexual abuse and hundreds more detailing the other issues listed above. (I believe the total is above 900) If the #metoo movement has taught us anything, it is that we should take victims seriously. Even if it is rare, it is real. Even one instance of abuse is unacceptable.

Our kids deserve the greatest possible care and protection, but it seems like there are less safeguards than there should be. To put this in perspective, consider that tithing money is always handled and taken to the bank by 2 people with no exceptions. Adults also have safeguards against infidelity or the appearance of infidelity: Members of the opposite gender are not supposed to share a car or a classroom. If 2 adults can’t be trusted to be alone, I certainly can’t trust an adult alone with my child discussing sensitive topics. No matter how trustworthy someone may seem, people are often blindsided by sexual predators.

So, even though every bishop should be reliable: it does not mean that they are. We’ve learned that even the president of the Missionary Training Center can be a bad apple. (If you’re dubious at all read the transcript of the interview between McKenna Denson and Joseph Bishop.) I don’t think increased inspiration (discernment) is the answer. Otherwise we wouldn’t have the aforementioned situations or keyed lockers in the temple. (Everyone in the temple is supposed to be trustworthy right?)

We need an extra layer of protection in place for our children as well. I believe that the only reliable, defensible change is exactly what Protect LDS children is requesting:
No sexual questions and no one on one interviews with children.

So how do we request change in the church?
We are used to seeing change come from the top down aren’t we?
Is it apostate behavior to request change from church leaders?

Surprisingly, changing the church from the ground up isn’t exactly unheard of. If you look at church history the concept doesn’t seem so strange. A good example is prohibition. Prohibition went into effect in 1920 and Heber J. Grant made alcoholic abstinence a requirement for a temple recommend in 1921. (He supported prohibition.) Previously several forms of alcohol were okay. Several other changes in the church have coincided with societal changes as well. I think this illustrates that policy can and does change. I don’t think it’s wrong to nudge the prophet to ponder / pray about changing something, especially when it is this important. Protect LDS Children and Sam Young are not opposing the church or the prophet, they are opposing a policy.

Interestingly enough, the policy in question isn’t even that old. One-on-one interviews and explicit questioning began sometime in the early 1970’s. They were reinforced with the publication of The Miracle of Forgiveness; Before that the law of chastity wasn’t even part of temple recommend interviews. In fact, it’s not even clear to me if confessing sins to a bishop is truly doctrinal or just current policy. As far as I can tell, repentance is ultimately meant to be between an individual and Jesus / God. In 1st Timothy 2:5 it says: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;” You repent for your other sins directly. Any references I’ve found about confessing to one another seem pretty nonspecific: No mention of priesthood or bishops. I know there is a bit of discussion on the topic in modern handbooks, but would that make it policy or doctrine? I’m inclined to think it’s the former.

The policy of 1-on-1 interviews did shift a bit on March 26th as a direct result of the Protect LDS Children movement. The new policy allows the child being interviewed to invite another adult to participate in the interview, however it places the burden on the minor. In many circumstances this is not enough to prevent abuse and unintended consequences of sexual questioning. So Sam Young continued the cause and organized a rally in Salt Lake City on March 30th. They marched to church headquarters where they presented 15 bound books personalized for each apostle. The books were titled Sacred Stories of Sacred Children and they featured 400 stories of people negatively affected by interviews as children. (I think the website is up over 900 now.) Many of the stories are shocking and truly terrible. Unfortunately Sam was unable to meet with any of the apostles directly to discuss potential policy changes.

Sam continued to try to reach out through the “proper channels” without much success. He ended up meeting with local authorities and area authorities, but he wasn’t able to discuss the cause with church leadership where it could make a difference. He didn’t feel like he was reaching the people who really needed to hear his message, so on July 29th he did something drastic: He staged a hunger strike for the cause in downtown SLC across from church headquarters. He held nightly firesides with victims of sexual assault as a result of 1-on-1 bishop interviews and he invited each of the general authorities to come meet them. Unfortunately, they never attended and he ended up fasting for 23 days. (2 days longer than Ghandi)

In the end, Sam had a disciplinary council on September 9th and he found out he was excommunicated on September 17th. The reason cited by the stake president that originally excommunicated him was his ”persistent, aggressive effort to persuade others to (his) point of view by repeatedly and deliberately attacking and publicly opposing the Church and its leaders.” This claim seems straightforward, but I think it is factually incorrect: I believe his actions protest and oppose policies rather than the church or it’s leaders. Furthermore, the act of opposing is an opportunity provided by the doctrine of common consent. (D&C 28:13) This post is already pretty long and I don’t want to dive into the doctrine of common consent here; However if you want to read about it, President Joseph F Smith elaborated on common consent in his sworn testimony before congress. What good is voting if you can never offer a dissenting vote? You’re allowed to vote opposed without losing your membership. You can google it. :)

The fact remains that Sam Young is still somehow excommunicated for attempting to protect Latter Day Saint children. If Sam Young is wrong in this, I don’t want to be right.

I stand with Sam.