Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
smac97

Jeremy Runnells Excommunicated

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Well, they don't really have much else, IMO.  This has been addressed many times here before, but there is not much that Runnells got wrong regarding the substance of his facts (other than minor nit picking from what I've seen).  One can certainly attack and disagree with his conclusions and his method.  But most avoid discussing the actual substance of the letter.

One can also not dispute how effective this letter has been at causing members to have issues and even leave the church after reading it and then doing more research on their own.  It's been sad to see....

I have read that Scott Gordon choked up and got emotional at the Fair conference as he talked about how effective this letter has been as an "anti-Mormon" proselyting tool.  He talked about how many people have left and that families have broken up or been very hurt because of it.  

I would love to hear his presentation and see if he really has found some significant errors in the letter because I have not seen any as of yet (other than minor mistakes and many of those are now corrected from what I understand).  

 

The church is holding out that members will be able to move on w/o the crisis, but even the gospel topic essays are causing members to leave. The inactivity has shot up so much that the real numbers of active members is real low. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, PacMan said:

Hey, Jeremy, before you go trolling old posts about yourself (because no one cares about you anymore),

Why would you say that?  Many still care as evidenced by an entire presentation given at the recent Fair conference.  (Or at least they are still concerned over the "success" of his letter regarding how it is affecting many members who've read it...)

How do you know this is Jeremy posting here?

10 hours ago, sunstoned said:

If you want the greatest anachronism of all, it's the content of the CES Letter itself--written AFTER it was purportedly posed to CES.  Dishonest and poorly crafted from top to bottom.

Even if this is true (and I agree that by the time he wrote the letter, he was most likely past the point of expecting answers).....what in the letter do you disagree with other than his conclusions?

Just curious....

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Classic.  Don't address the content, just go after the messenger.  

CFR the content.  There was nothing but spurious conclusory comments that unnamed questions need answering.

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, they don't really have much else, IMO.  This has been addressed many times here before, but there is not much that Runnells got wrong regarding the substance of his facts (other than minor nit picking from what I've seen).  One can certainly attack and disagree with his conclusions and his method or motives.  But most avoid discussing the actual substance of the letter.

One can also not dispute how effective this letter has been at causing members to have issues and even leave the church after reading it and then doing more research on their own.  It's been sad to see....

I have read that Scott Gordon choked up and got emotional at the Fair conference as he talked about how effective this letter has been as an "anti-Mormon" proselyting tool.  He talked about how many people have left and that families have broken up or been very hurt because of it.  

I would love to hear his presentation and see if he really has found some significant errors in the letter because I have not seen any as of yet (other than minor mistakes and many of those are now corrected from what I understand).  

 

I am sorry, but you are grossly deceived.  If you think there's not much that Runnells got wrong, then you are about 5 years behind the times.  Runnells's fraud-job is full of misrepresentation, proof-text, naked citations, and unfounded speculation.  There are legitimate questions to be asked, but those questions are not in the oft-edited letter.

That you equate "effectiveness" with causing members to leave the church (as opposed to discovering truth) both reveals the disingenuous nature of the letter and your disdain for it.

There's a special place in hell reserved for Jeremy Runnells.

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The church is holding out that members will be able to move on w/o the crisis, but even the gospel topic essays are causing members to leave. The inactivity has shot up so much that the real numbers of active members is real low. 

The essays are great, but the problem was that many read the letter before the essays and so not from a faithful perspective.  It’s too bad the leaders didn’t get ahead of the problematic issues before Jeremy did.

The essays were written after the CES letter, isn’t that correct?

I wonder if the essays had been written first and really promoted for the members to read, if the letter then wouldn’t have had such an impact?

I agree though that some read the essays and go into a crisis of faith from new material they weren’t previously aware of.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The church is holding out that members will be able to move on w/o the crisis, but even the gospel topic essays are causing members to leave. The inactivity has shot up so much that the real numbers of active members is real low. 

CFR your speculative nonsense.  I can say that not a single member in our ward is inactive because of church history issues.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, PacMan said:

I am sorry, but you are grossly deceived.  If you think there's not much that Runnells got wrong, then you are about 5 years behind the times.  Runnells's fraud-job is full of misrepresentation, proof-text, naked citations, and unfounded speculation.  There are legitimate questions to be asked, but those questions are not in the oft-edited letter.

That you equate "effectiveness" with causing members to leave the church (as opposed to discovering truth) both reveals the disingenuous nature of the letter and your disdain for it.

There's a special place in hell reserved for Jeremy Runnells.

Once again, you attack the messenger.  I get that and I really do not care for his methods or behavior, etc.

But let's pick a topic from the letter....let's get to the actual material or substance presented.  How about the topic of Joseph's polygamy?  What did Runnells get wrong there (other than his own personal conclusions)?

You keep insinuating that he got much wrong in the actual letter.  Name some from the content.  I know he could have written it better and I've read the debunkings back and forth (between him, others, and FAIR)....but I've seen nothing really debunked concerning any actual facts that he presented. 

I am certainly open to learn of any you've found and willing to discuss it.

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, PacMan said:

CFR your speculative nonsense.  I can say that not a single member in our ward is inactive because of church history issues.

I have read on some other boards people share that the essays caused them to leave. It happens because many had heard what was termed anti material on missions or elsewhere only to find out from reading the essays that it was true. How exactly do you want me to provide proof. There is a lot out there, can you give me some time, lol. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, PacMan said:

CFR your speculative nonsense.  I can say that not a single member in our ward is inactive because of church history issues.

Many don't talk about why they leave or even why they're struggling even though they are active.  I can tell you from being in a position of leadership, that many have read this letter and it has caused many to leave or struggle to stay active.  As Scott Gordon stated....this letter has been effective and caused pain for many families.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Why would you say that?  Many still care as evidenced by an entire presentation given at the recent Fair conference.  (Or at least they are still concerned over the "success" of his letter regarding how it is affecting many members who've read it...)

How do you know this is Jeremy posting here?

Even if this is true (and I agree that by the time he wrote the letter, he was most likely past the point of expecting answers).....what in the letter do you disagree with other than his conclusions?

Just curious....

People care about the letter.  But people don't care about Jeremy.

Jeremy is a fraud.  He has perpetuated this letter as a "sincere" attempt to find answers.  It is not sincere.  Not in the least.  He has appointed a board to edit what he originally wrote after it was established that he repeatedly didn't know what he was talking about.  And he promulgates it all the same as if it were the original.

Many people have raised questions about church history over the years, including Quinn and the Tanners.  Jeremy is neither.  Jeremy is a regurgitating hack.  And if he thinks he's smart, then I personally invite him to debate on any of the issues he has in that letter in a rotating format - he can go first.  But he won't do it - you want to know why?  Because he runs away when he's challenged.  He is not very smart.  In another forum where his disciples were praising him, I asked him about the timing of his letter and how it is that he can maintain its sincerity given its editorial board, and further asked how the CES Director refused to answer questions in the letter which didn't exist at the time he allegedly sent it to the CES Director.  Wanna know what happened?  Jeremy ran away.  Just like John Dehlin.  Had to find a "safe place" that was good for his mental health.  I kid you not.

These guys are cowards and charlatans.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, PacMan said:

People care about the letter.  But people don't care about Jeremy.

Jeremy is a fraud.  He has perpetuated this letter as a "sincere" attempt to find answers.  It is not sincere.  Not in the least.  He has appointed a board to edit what he originally wrote after it was established that he repeatedly didn't know what he was talking about.  And he promulgates it all the same as if it were the original.

Many people have raised questions about church history over the years, including Quinn and the Tanners.  Jeremy is neither.  Jeremy is a regurgitating hack.  And if he thinks he's smart, then I personally invite him to debate on any of the issues he has in that letter in a rotating format - he can go first.  But he won't do it - you want to know why?  Because he runs away when he's challenged.  He is not very smart.  In another forum where his disciples were praising him, I asked him about the timing of his letter and how it is that he can maintain its sincerity given its editorial board, and further asked how the CES Director refused to answer questions in the letter which didn't exist at the time he allegedly sent it to the CES Director.  Wanna know what happened?  Jeremy ran away.  Just like John Dehlin.  Had to find a "safe place" that was good for his mental health.  I kid you not.

These guys are cowards and charlatans.

And once again, all you post are personal attacks or insults.  We get it....you don't like the guy and question his motives and methods (so do I...I think it's obvious what his intent in writing the letter was and he's been successful at accomplishing that, IMO....).

But, I ask again:

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But let's pick a topic from the letter....let's get to the actual material or substance presented.  How about the topic of Joseph's polygamy?  What did Runnells get wrong there (other than his own personal conclusions)?

You keep insinuating that he got much wrong in the actual letter.  Name some from the content.  I know he could have written it better and I've read the debunkings back and forth (between him, others, and FAIR)....but I've seen nothing really debunked concerning any actual facts that he presented. 

I am certainly open to learn of any you've found and willing to discuss it.

 

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Many don't talk about why they leave or even why they're struggling even though they are active.  I can tell you from being in a position of leadership, that many have read this letter and it has caused many to leave or struggle to stay active.  As Scott Gordon stated....this letter has been effective and caused pain for many families.  

You are a perfect example of the type of people that leave the church.  I make a comment about those that are inactive.  You rebut it by twisting it into a comment about those that are "struggling though they are active."  You comment is completely unreponsive to what I said.  Just like your demand to discuss the "substance" of polygamy when "Quinton R. Ford's" post said nothing about it.

No wonder you buy into the CES Letter.  You can't distinguish between an apple and a hippopotamus.

Tell you what - if you want to talk about polygamy, open a thread and let's debate it.  But don't derail the thread here.  But be warned - if you open the thread, you better be prepared to answer one question:  Why does it freaking matter?  You can't support your answer--whatever it is.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I have read on some other boards people share that the essays caused them to leave. It happens because many had heard what was termed anti material on missions or elsewhere only to find out from reading the essays that it was true. How exactly do you want me to provide proof. There is a lot out there, can you give me some time, lol. 

 

You're the one that made a statement of fact.  The burden of proof is your problem.

Although you highlight another great indicator of the type of people that leave the church--those with an arrogant narrow-mindedness that their small sliver of information is representative of the comprehensive whole, when it is not.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

PacMan is taking a break from the board for a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...