A little after 7 PM, Mountain time, on the evening of August 15, 2018, Sam Young was standing on the sidewalk of South Temple Street in Salt Lake City wearing a business suit over a striped shirt and tie and a baseball cap on his head. He was addressing a crowd of some dozens, perhaps, on the sidewalk, and a couple of hundred on a live facebook video stream. He was describing how his association with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints make him feel filthy. He then proceeded to strip out of his clothes to reveal swim trunks, following which he dumped water over his head to symbolically wash the “filthiness” of the Church off of himself.
This is juxtaposed against a narrative in which Mr. Young declares that he is the best of friends of the Church, which he claims to love. He declares that his positions are unassailable; with which no reasonable person could disagree. He swears and yells against anyone who would suggest that he or his followers are in apostasy for taking the only position they view as moral. He even proclaimed loudly that Pres. Nelson and the rest of the apostles had already received what he termed be revelation that they should follow Mr. Young’s lead.
An important thing to note about Mr. Young, though, is that he has long felt insulted by the Church. He has complained loudly and long that he has dedicated years of his life, and lots of money, to the Church, and thinks that this should give him the right to have input on the Church’s teachings, doctrines and practices. He has taken up various causes over the years, and has been voting opposed to the apostles in every conference he attends for the last three or four years.
Meanwhile, a self-proclaimed faithful and believing member of the Church is openly advocating that members should disregard the counsel of Church leaders on a separate issue. A certain Connor Boyack has been leading the charge for Prop 2 in Utah, a ballot measure seeking to remove state law impediments to the use of marijuana for various supposedly medical reasons.[1] On August 23, 2018, the Church hosted a press conference in which it announced opposition to Prop 2 and specifically requested that Utahns vote against this ballot measure.
The previous day, the Salt Lake Tribune had reported that the Church was quietly building the coalition that had joined with the Church at this press conference. Boyack had almost immediately posted on Facebook the query, “Can I request my tithing not be used to fund my own opposition?” In follow up comments he asserted that Church leadership would “concede that God is not in” their opposition to his ballot proposal, and has suggested that the Church’s statements on this issue amount to unrighteous dominion. Boyack complains that the Church’s involvement with Prop 2 means that their “man-led effort is nonetheless boosted by doctrinally ignorant Mormons who imbue into that effort a presumption of revelatory guidance.” This has been a common theme of Boyack’s public posts and comments over the last week.
If you are paying attention, you will see that Sam Young and Connor Boyack have several things in common. First, they have undertaken to make themselves the voice for the supposedly voiceless. Young supposedly cares for the children, while Boyack is concerned about the innocent patient. Secondly, their views of the Church are remarkably similar in some important ways. Both view the Church’s opposition and non-acquiescence to their demands to be motivated by unrighteous motives. They both view it as their right and duty to correct what they perceive to be failings in the Church, and assert that they have superior knowledge and inspiration with respect to the causes they are championing. Third, both are actively campaigning to urge members of the Church to disregard the counsel of the Church on the topic that they have chosen to emphasize.
And finally, you just can’t talk to either of them. Let me tell you what I mean. I have engaged in virtual conversations with Boyack regarding the appropriateness of his attacks on the Church, as well as the legitimacy of his excuses for urging others to disregard counsel from Church leaders. For instance, Boyack complains that the Church’s suggestion regarding marijuana is “impossible” because it is federally illegal for pharmacists to dispense marijuana products. He uses this argument to assert that the Church is either ignorant or disingenuous because their proposal is so outrageously impossible that they must not be telling the truth. This attitude spills over to discussions with individuals, to whom he ascribes bad motivations and ill will to those arguing against Prop 2, and leaves no room that someone’s opposition may just be a thoughtful and principled stand.
In short, Boyack is an ideologue who will not back down from his position, come hell or high water. In all my interactions with him, he has uniformly treated opposition to his ideas with contempt, and specifically in this case he seems to view those members of the Church in opposition to him as having mindlessly and mechanically adopted the views of the Church.[2] As a result, anyone seeking a reasonable conversation with him on the issues he feels strongly about will find themselves getting an op-ed regurgitated at them with dismissive responses to any counterpoints.
The same is true of Sam Young. He has certain core premises that he considers absolutely inviolable, and when someone comes along and questions those premises, he asserts that any honest person would agree with him and that the truth of his positions are so self-evident that no reasonable person could disagree. I have watched as he has given voice to this time and again and his followers, following his lead, heap abuse on all who dare question their leader.
Conversations with such men are entirely pointless. Neither one will allow for honest motivations of opposing voices, and so any expression of an opposing idea will only be met by spoken or unspoken contempt. Once you understand their position, should you even wish to in the first place, there is nothing more of value to be gained in continuing to speak or listen, as they view your opposing opinion to be dishonest, or the product of delusion. Why waste breathe in such circumstances?
[1] It is not my intention to discuss the merits of the arguments for and against Prop. 2, which I was planning on voting against long before the Church made it’s opposition clear.
[2] This is not remotely the case for me, as my position on Prop 2 is entirely independent of the Church’s, and is one that I reached months ago when I originally considered the proposition. I was never voting for it.