29 Questions

Questions

***Trigger Warning***

Disturbing pornographic questions below.  They are too obscene for polite adult discussion.  Yet, they appear to be approved fodder for probing our children behind the closed doors of our Mormon leaders.  Hundreds of testimonials are found HERE.

Dear Apostles,

If you don’t condemn, you condone

Regarding youth interviews, you have published this statement regarding church leaders:  “They are counseled to not be unnecessarily probing or invasive in their questions.”

Here are 29 questions that have been asked and continue to be asked in order to probe our children.  To me, they are ALL ‘unnecessarily probing or invasive.’  They are disgusting and vile.

My challenge to you, dear apostles:  Pick just one question that you condemn as being ‘unnecessarily probing or invasive.’  Certainly, there is at least one that you can condemn.

29 Questions

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?

My apostolic friends, thousands of testimonials were delivered to your office on March 30, 2018.  At least one member of your quorum has read them all.  To date, you have not condemned a single question.  I am left to conclude that you condone every one of the repulsive 29.

Please let me and the world know that I’m wrong.

With love your brother in Christ,

Sam Young

P.S.  You can also see these questions in VIDEO.

22 thoughts on “29 Questions

  1. Oh yay! The truth comes out and no apostle wants to speak about it? How is this any different than the Catholics and their abuse of kids? It all starts around these types of questions!
    I’ve had my relationship with the LDS church dissolved! Thank you Jesus!!
    How are the men asking these questions any different than the RLDS and their abuse of young women? WARREN JEFFS!!
    Oh my God in Heaven the LDS is now a cult and has been for a very long time!! Oh praise mighty God!! The truth shall be revealed!! YAY!

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Sam, I totally agree that the questions listed are totally disgusting and should not be asked by any leader to any child/youth. What I don’t understand is what do you want from the General Authorities. The list of approved questions from the GA’s have only one question…Do yo live the Law of Chastity? The GA’s can not be in every interview with every youth in the church. There has to be someone that our youth can talk to, especially those who don’t have parents who have the type of relationship with their children that welcomes open communication. I , personally think that person should be someone of the same sex. I know it’s easy to say this now that my children are grown and have kids of their own, but I think the first thing that needs to happen is a fireside for parents only with Bishoprics and Stake Presidencies. And parents being told what their stewardship is and that their children need to come to them immediately when anything inappropriate is said to them. My children are much smarter than I was when it comes to this kind of relationship with their children. Maybe then we find out where the problem is in the Priesthood and get the ones out of those offices who are abusing children, and not have to wait 30 years to hear these stories. Did you really think the GA’s were going to come one at a time and sit in front of a group of agitated, formerly abused people and answer questions and speak for the church. It was a disaster waiting to happen. We were told many years ago that we weren’t going to be commanded in all things. As parents, the ball is in our court to straighten this out and it is called parental responsibility. We can go with our child in to he interviews. We need to be raising our children and stop expecting the church to do it.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Simple answer. No Church led compulsory one-on-one interviews. If a youth wants to talk to an ecclesiastical leader, then it happens in a situation where another trusted adult is present. Always. And it is initiated by the youth.

      Liked by 2 people

    2. The answer is simple. Why wait for your child to have the harm done to them first? Unfortunately not every child is going to have a special relationship with someone that they trust that they can pull in to the interview with them.
      No one-on-one interviews. No sexually explicit questions ever. This would indeed solve this problem.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. -Clarifying to say not every child has a special trusted person that they might feel they can call on to bring in to the bishop’s office with them, but it doesn’t mean that the other adolescents should be left to fend for themselves. If it were mandatory to have a 2nd person in the interview then it wouldn’t be ackward on the asking teen or the parent who is asking the bishop if they can come with their child to the interview.

        Liked by 1 person

    3. Really? It is very clear what he expects from the General Authorities! What does the name General Authority mean? They are acting like Warren Jeff’s in his “answer them nothing” way. That is WRONG! They have authority and need to use it to end this sexual abuse of children. Ending it may be an admittance that it is actually a problem. Your post is full of excuses for them. They need to put on their grown man britches and be men and not cowards! There is trouble in the corporation. Do you really NOT know what Sam Young wants from the GA’s? Puhhhleeezzzeeee!!! Somebody help her!

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I know what he started out want. But when he got those two things, he changed his wants to no interviews and everyone went along with his change.

        Liked by 1 person

    4. Janice,

      If you actually believe that “Sam got what he wants” … are you smokin’ something that’s against the Word of Wisdom? Are you drinking Coke or Pepsi.

      Oh …. scratch the Pepsi. TSM was a Pepsi addict, so I guess Pepsi is AOK.

      Like

  3. Dear Sam,

    Thank you for removing EVERYONE’S ability to minimize, downplay, soft-pedal, understate or obfuscate the explicit questions that any sitting Bishop CAN, DID, DOES or WILL ask LDS youth during worthiness interviews.

    Let’s also not forget that THIS IS NOT A COMPLETE LIST. It only includes some of what has been reported so far by FIRST-HAND WITNESSES who were personally ASKED THESE QUESTIONS by their own personal Bishop at some time in the past.

    To be fair (yes, I do indeed want to be fair), I do acknowledge that many Bishops NEVER ask any of these 29 questions. On the other hand, I also acknowledge that 30,000 Bishops have CARTE BLANCHE, PRIOR TACIT APPROVAL from the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and the First Presidency to ask ANY LDS child ANY of these questions in order to judge the child’s level of compliance with, and obedience to, the Law of Chastity (however the Bishop chooses to interpret what the Law of Chastity means and does not mean).

    I want to write this on the wall and then discuss:

    BISHOPS ASKING ANY LDS KID ANY OF THESE 29 SEXUALLY EXPLICIT, PORNOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS IS FINE/OK WITH PRESIDENT NELSON, HIS COUNSELORS, AND THE ENTIRE QUORUM OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES.

    The elephant in the room has this question painted on both sides in white letters two feet high:

    WHY?

    Why are The Brethren OK with one-on-one interviews INCLUDING sexually explicit questions?

    The Brethren speak on this topic only via carefully wordsmithed PR platitudes about how much they love the children. When they did announce an interview Policy Change, they placed ALL of the responsibility for preventing one-on-one interviews … ON WHOM?

    UPON WHOM DID THE BRETHREN OFFICIALLY ASSIGN ALL ( that means A-L-L) OF THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PREVENT ONE-ON-ONE INTERVIEWS WITH LDS CHILDREN?

    Fifteen prophets, seers and revelators collectively and officially transferred ALL responsibility to PROTECT LDS CHILDREN from sexually explicit interrogations, behind closed doors, during Bishop worthiness interviews TO WHOM?

    Transferred TO WHOM?

    The factually correct answer to this very serious question is SO ABSURD it truly boggles the imagination!

    The governing leadership of the LDS Church officially assigned PROTECT LDS CHILDREN responsibility … to the very same LDS CHILDREN who need protection from their Bishops. Protection from Bishops who are pre-authorized … by the governing leadership of the LDS Church … to ask any sexually explicit questions the Bishop deems appropriate.

    The Brethren have essentially declared via official press release that they think THE WORLD IS TOO DENSE to read between the lines to figure out what The Brethren are actually communicating … quite effectively, I might add … for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

    The Brethren say they love the precious children … and then announce a policy giving those same precious children permission to PROTECT THEMSELVES if they feel like they need protection from their Bishop.

    Let me help out by taking a shot at reading between the lines and then writing down in plain English what I see that The Brethren have signaled to the world regarding how they actually feel about PROTECTING LDS CHILDREN.

    NEWS FLASH (you’re reading it here first)

    BETWEEN THE LINES from The Brethren (as interpreted by yours truly):

    1. WE BELIEVE that feelings of guilt and shame are not only appropriate, but also desirable for anyone who transgresses our interpretation of God’s Law of Chastity, which requires nothing less than absolute sexual purity in both thought and action. Feelings of remorse, however uncomfortable or even painful, are God’s way of communicating that you have sinned and need to sincerely repent and get yourself back on track to once again receive the wonderful blessings of the Restored Gospel.

    2. WE BELIEVE that an important role of all Bishops in the lives of our young members is to assist them in experiencing appropriate feelings of remorse in the wake of a sexual behavior misstep. The most effective method of instilling these much-needed feelings of regret and remorse for having disobeyed God’s Law of Chastity is for the Bishop to review in detail precisely which behaviors are unacceptable before God. We do not want any of our precious LDS children to have any doubt or confusion regarding what they did to displease God … and what they must stop doing … and never do again … to once again restore themselves to a state of worthiness before the Lord.

    3. WE BELIEVE that we truly love our precious LDS children and feel a solemn and sacred responsibility to those children by virtue of the mantle of authority which the Lord Himself has entrusted upon us as His only true representatives on Earth.

    4. WE BELIEVE that we would be derelict in our sacred responsibilities if we were to command our Bishops and local Priesthood leaders with an order such as this: NO ONE-ON-ONE INTERVIEWS; NO SEXUALLY EXPLICIT QUESTIONS; EVER!

    5. WE BELIEVE that cessation of personal worthiness interviews would be interpreted by our precious children as permission to touch their own bodies (or someone else’s body) whenever they want to feel good for the moment, but at what cost? Is the instant gratification of pleasurable sensations worth the price of forfeiting their Eternal Salvation?

    6. WE BELIEVE that it is God’s plan that some of his children who disregard His Law of Chastity and who do not find the resolve to repent fully of their sexual indulgences may eventually feel so overwhelmed by appropriate intensity of guilt and shame … that some will exercise their free agency to resolve their pain without availing themselves of the miracle of forgiveness achievable by all of those who humble themselves and resolve to go through the process of repentance according to God’s plan. Some of these children may choose to take their own lives instead of repenting and sinning no more.

    7. In other words, WE ULTIMATELY BELIEVE that the wages of sin is death, and that this is God’s will for those who choose to turn their backs on the blessings of the Restored Gospel made available to anyone who finds their eternal soul in need of repentance. We join with, and support our Bishops as they BLESS LDS CHILDREN.

    =============

    Is THIS is what The Brethren really think about Sam Young’s inititiative to PROTECT LDS CHILDREN?

    Do The Brethren believe that Sam Young is actually HARMING LDS CHILDREN by attempting to shield them from the guilt and shame that GOD WANTS THE KIDS TO FEEL as motivation for them to repent and restore their lives to a state of sexual purity in conformance with the Law of Chastity … with nothing less than their ETERNAL SALVATION on the line?

    Do The Brethren (and Church PR) realize they cannot come clean and announce how they truly feel about Sam Young’s activism … without a tsunami of public backlash? Is the best they can do to continue to ignore Sam and remain silent, other than occasional press release wordsmithery or policy “changes”?

    =============

    Confession Time:

    Jesus, please forgive me, for I have sinned. I told a lie on Sam’s blog.

    What was my lie? You’re not Jesus, but I will come clean with you anyway.

    This conclusions of this post are pure BS.

    I do not … for a minute … believe that The Brethren are concerned in the least about the Eternal Salvation of LDS Children.

    I believe that what they actually care about is something else … which they will never, ever admit to.

    I invite those who read this post to Reply and explain to everyone what YOU BELIEVE it is that TRULY motivates The Brethren when it comes to how they treat LDS CHILDREN.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. The problem, of course, is that Young is neither an honest inquisitor nor an objective witness.

    Almost all of his accusations are anecdotal, taken from “man-on-the-street” interviews- unsubstantiated and unverified.

    The “witnesses’ (accusers) are self-selecting and are not “vetted” in any way.

    Calling his methodology “unscientific” would be to engage in understatement (and misrepresentation) on a cosmic scale.

    Moreover, his “you-either-condemn-it-or-condone-it” is pure Kafka-trapping (and, quite arguably, gas-lighting).

    The Church HAS- in no uncertain terms- condemned such intrusive and abusive questions. Young admits as much in his opening statement.

    The reality is that Young simply wants the Church leadership to show up and dance to his lute IN PUBLIC, and facts and reason be damned.

    He’s not interested in genuine reform, so much as political theater he and his allies can exploit to their own gain.

    Like

    1. Roger,

      Thank you for sharing. I don’t blame you for looking for reasons to discredit Sam and the methods he has chosen to make a difference.

      If even a small fraction of the published personal stories of young lives shattered by Bishop-induced guilt and shame are true, you are in a tough spot, Roger. You are in a tough spot because you are pretending that all is well in Zion. You are pretending that the beautiful LDS kids you see at Church are all safe from harm, behind a closed door, in your Bishop’s office. And not only in your Bishop’s office, but during one-on-one worthiness interviews of tens of thousands of kids behind the closed doors of ALL 30,000 Bishops’ offices.

      Gotta call you out on a “stretch” statement in your post, Roger.

      “The Church HAS- in no uncertain terms- condemned such intrusive and abusive questions. Young admits as much in his opening statement.”

      You transmogrified the actual words written in the Church’s revised policy statement regarding worthiness interviews into a statement more in alignment with YOUR personal core values, Roger. Do you understand what I am observing about you?

      I will convert your blog statement into a true statement (as I hope I understand your core values here):

      “I hope that the Church WILL – in no uncertain terms- condemn such intrusive and abusive questions.”

      Roger, I believe that YOU HOPE the Church will eventually prohibit sexually explicit questions of LDS kids. You have unwittingly revealed that you agree with Sam. The words you chose to write betray the goodness of your heart and your personal desire that LDS kids not be endangered or abused.

      You yourself would NEVER subject LDS kids to the sexually explicit interrogations that are -AS WE SPEAK- still allowed by the Q15 to be asked by ALL Bishops across the worldwide Church as they see fit to determine if a Mormon kid is obeying the Law of Chastity … and if not, why not? (details please).

      Sam clearly explained in today’s video what the Church has and has not stated regarding Law of Chastity inquiry during worthiness interviews. I won’t repeat the details … I think you’ve heard enough.

      Thank you for agreeing with Sam’s stated objective to PROTECT LDS CHILDREN.

      If you believe that has already been accomplished by The Brethren, then I hope what you say already happened, eventually does indeed happen.

      Your personal attack on Sam and his motives is known as the Ad Hominen logical fallacy. If you don’t like the message, then just soothe yourself by shooting the messenger. You give yourself permission to ignore the message by impugning the source. If that works for you, Roger … there you are.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Thank you for saying all of this. No GA is going to sit up there and be bomblasted by questioning from unvetted victims. Those people aren’t going to come out. Instead there will be former Mormons who have a bone to pick with the church over all kinds of things. If the victims were going to come out, they wouldn’t have written unsigned letters.

      Liked by 2 people

    1. Dear Marshal,

      Using your own natural sense of discernment, taking into account everything you have seen and heard so far, do you yourself think the church is being led by God through the apostles of the LDS church?

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Considering that JFS was on record in a senate hearing saying that he had never received any revelation from God (or Jesus) and he had not heard of any such direct revelation for the past 20 years (and that he possessed no special power that any other regular member of the church would not have themselves), it seems apparent to me that the LDS church itself does not think it is being led by God.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. This is BS. When you write something like this, sources other yourself, need to be cited. Stupid is as stupid does.

      2. Janice, did you look up the second link? The photocopy of the official record of the Reed Smoot hearings? I presume you did not, so I will assist. You can read the on-topic excerpt right now:

        [my comment in brackets]

        Senator Dubois: Have you received any individual revelations yourself, since you became president of the church under your own definition, even, of revelation?

        Mr. Smith: I can not say that I have.

        Mr. Dubois: Can you say that you have not?

        Mr. Smith: No; I can not say that I have not. [word games here]

        Mr. Dubois: Then you do not know whether you have received any such revelation as you have described, or whether you have not?

        Mr. Smith: Well, I can say this: That if I live as I should in the line of my duties, I am susceptible, I think, of the impressions of the spirit of the Lord upon my mind at any time, just as any good Methodist or any other good church member might be. And so far as that is concerned, I say yes: I have had impressions of the Spirit upon my mind very frequently, but they are not in the sense revelations.

        =================

        Janice, you are programmed to speak no evil, hear no evil, say no evil and think no evil of the Lord’s Anointed. You are able to instantly and summarily dismiss as BS any and all information that does not support your brainwash.

        You have lost control of your own mind. If you are b.i.c. that is NOT YOUR FAULT, Janice … because you NEVER had control of your own mind since birth. It’s a Mind Control Cult. It Controls Minds. It’s what Mind Control Cults do … they Control Minds.

        This is the bottom line reason why The Brethren will never (voluntarily) outlaw the sexually shaming of their defenseless Mind Controlees.

        The Brethren are helpeless against their own Core Level Consciousness Deficits and Gratification Addictions.

        Would you VOLUNTARILY stop a practice that helps to guarantee the continuation of a revenue stream totaling BILLIONS OF DOLLARS a year?

        Methinks not, dear Janice. Methinks not.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Thank you for pushing this issue, I for one can personally vouch for 4 of these questions I’m sure more if I hadn’t felt so absolutely horrific at the time and completely shut down my ability to speak! The church teach from a very young age that all members including children need to seek council with their leaders, and the bishop is the only person who can offer out appropriate “punishments” for your actions. So going to parents was not an option if you are seeking forgiveness from God. As a 16 year old girl who found herself in an abusive situation this is exactly what I did, and was then humiliated further by being punished for the abuses. I am not alone, the church must change but they first must admit the wrong doings or be seen to be supporting them.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s