VideoGameJunkie Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 The creator of the CES letter is having his court of love Sunday February 14th on Valentines Day. I just hope the CES Letter doesn't make the news. This topic has been merged with "The Court of Love" topic.
Popular Post Calm Posted February 10, 2016 Popular Post Posted February 10, 2016 (edited) "court of love" is not the appropriate term these days (it is used on lds.org once in a talk title back in 72 and referred to in one article in 82), it is usually used in a derogatory fashion, so better just to call it a disciplinary council: https://www.lds.org/topics/church-disciplinary-councils?lang=eng Edited February 10, 2016 by Calm 5
strappinglad Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 Another example of self promotion. This time it actually pulls on ' heart ' strings.
VideoGameJunkie Posted February 10, 2016 Author Posted February 10, 2016 1 minute ago, Calm said: "court of love" is not the appropriate term, it is usually used in a derogatory fashion, so better just to call it a discipline council: https://www.lds.org/topics/church-disciplinary-councils?lang=eng I've always heard both used. Didn't know the difference since I hope to never have one.
Calm Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 (edited) I have never heard "court of love" from active LDS myself offline. I suppose there are those who picked it up back in the 70s, but I don't think it has ever been the official term for the disciplinary councils. Edited February 10, 2016 by Calm 4
VideoGameJunkie Posted February 10, 2016 Author Posted February 10, 2016 It's announced that he will have a press conference February 10th and supporters will hold a vigil for him on the 14th. I hope no one shows up for either. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 9 minutes ago, Calm said: "court of love" is not the appropriate term these days (it is used on lds.org once in a talk title back in 72 and referred to in one article in 82), it is usually used in a derogatory fashion, so better just to call it a discipline council: https://www.lds.org/topics/church-disciplinary-councils?lang=eng Even so, I attended a meeting in Provo many years ago in which anti-Mormon Chuck Larson openly stated that his LDS excommunication trial was indeed a court of love, and that he had been well treated by very considerate Brethren. Most other churches also have disciplinary courts in which members and clergy can be excommunicated or otherwise disciplined, and most have very specific rules under which such courts are held.
sdc999 Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 Alright. This is something that I know as a past mormon I would have detested at the time and after speaking to a couple of very active friends still in the church, it irked them as well. 'honey, how about a nice romantic dinner for the two of us tonight?' 'that would be great but I'll have to pass. I going to the church to sit in judgement of an individual member. I'll get back to you later.' Now this isn't a knock on the process of a disciplinary council but a lack of respect for a member's time. This is something that could have easily been scheduled another day. There are things that need to be done in any organization and I can respect that. Would they have a council meet on Christmas? Easter? 1
Tacenda Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 36 minutes ago, sdc999 said: Alright. This is something that I know as a past mormon I would have detested at the time and after speaking to a couple of very active friends still in the church, it irked them as well. 'honey, how about a nice romantic dinner for the two of us tonight?' 'that would be great but I'll have to pass. I going to the church to sit in judgement of an individual member. I'll get back to you later.' Now this isn't a knock on the process of a disciplinary council but a lack of respect for a member's time. This is something that could have easily been scheduled another day. There are things that need to be done in any organization and I can respect that. Would they have a council meet on Christmas? Easter? And a Sunday...
Popular Post halconero Posted February 10, 2016 Popular Post Posted February 10, 2016 A lot of it comes down to motivation. Without naming names, there are members of this board who struggle with the same doubts Runnells does, and who have the same questions. Even posting about those doubts is fine. Asking the questions is fine. The problem with Runnells, which was the same problem that Dehli had, is their use of their membership as a rather open deception to draw away members. They would post on their main website about how they wanted to help members who were struggling, they wanted to have an honest discussion regarding troubling issues, and simply wanted to move forward with a more open dialogue. They would then go to r/exmormon and mockingly deride the church, post about the people they're leading away and make fun of the "TBM's" who either chose to not read their work or more insultingly to them, read it and choose to remain faithful. The purpose of their work may have started from a desire to ask questions and advocate for members struggling in doubt, but it quickly moved into active proselytizing for leaving while under the guise of faith. If you don't identify as a member and want to advocate that others leave, fine. There are members here that have done that who I respect a lot for their comments and threads. The difference is that their position is argued from a point of honesty. Neither Runnells or Dehlin have acted from a position of honesty in the past. 10
Duncan Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 6 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: It's announced that he will have a press conference February 10th and supporters will hold a vigil for him on the 14th. I hope no one shows up for either. a press conference? who do these people think they are? 1
Tacenda Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 (edited) I read that a CES director asked Runnells for a letter outlining all his questions, I'll bet he regrets that to the max. Edited February 10, 2016 by Tacenda
rodheadlee Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 1 hour ago, sdc999 said: Alright. This is something that I know as a past mormon I would have detested at the time and after speaking to a couple of very active friends still in the church, it irked them as well. 'honey, how about a nice romantic dinner for the two of us tonight?' 'that would be great but I'll have to pass. I going to the church to sit in judgement of an individual member. I'll get back to you later.' Now this isn't a knock on the process of a disciplinary council but a lack of respect for a member's time. This is something that could have easily been scheduled another day. There are things that need to be done in any organization and I can respect that. Would they have a council meet on Christmas? Easter? Yeah that whole serve thing was meant for some other priesthood. 1
Duncan Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 12 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I read that a CES director asked Runnell's for a letter outlining all his questions, I'll bet he regrets that to the max. does anyone know who this CES director even is?
ALarson Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 20 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I read that a CES director asked Runnell's for a letter outlining all his questions, I'll bet he regrets that to the max. I don't know if he regrets writing the letter. He's not being disciplined for writing the response he was asked to write (from his CES director), IMO. I would imagine that he is being disciplined for what he's done since he wrote the letter and for trying to make money preaching against the church. 2
Gray Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 44 minutes ago, halconero said: A lot of it comes down to motivation. Without naming names, there are members of this board who struggle with the same doubts Runnells does, and who have the same questions. Even posting about those doubts is fine. Asking the questions is fine. The problem with Runnells, which was the same problem that Dehli had, is their use of their membership as a rather open deception to draw away members. They would post on their main website about how they wanted to help members who were struggling, they wanted to have an honest discussion regarding troubling issues, and simply wanted to move forward with a more open dialogue. They would then go to r/exmormon and mockingly deride the church, post about the people they're leading away and make fun of the "TBM's" who either chose to not read their work or more insultingly to them, read it and choose to remain faithful. The purpose of their work may have started from a desire to ask questions and advocate for members struggling in doubt, but it quickly moved into active proselytizing for leaving while under the guise of faith. If you don't identify as a member and want to advocate that others leave, fine. There are members here that have done that who I respect a lot for their comments and threads. The difference is that their position is argued from a point of honesty. Neither Runnells or Dehlin have acted from a position of honesty in the past. I haven't followed Runnels that closely, but I think both have been pretty open about where they stand, belief-wise 2
Rain Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, sdc999 said: Alright. This is something that I know as a past mormon I would have detested at the time and after speaking to a couple of very active friends still in the church, it irked them as well. 'honey, how about a nice romantic dinner for the two of us tonight?' 'that would be great but I'll have to pass. I going to the church to sit in judgement of an individual member. I'll get back to you later.' Now this isn't a knock on the process of a disciplinary council but a lack of respect for a member's time. This is something that could have easily been scheduled another day. There are things that need to be done in any organization and I can respect that. Would they have a council meet on Christmas? Easter? That caught me too, but really didn't bother me. I recognize that one of the reasons was because DH and I don't celebrate Valentines, but others do. The other thing though is the fact that it is on Sunday. I don't know any active members who would celebrate with a romantic dinner on Sunday (I'm sure some do). Most would do it on the Saturday before. Valentines just isn't a holiday like Christmas or Easter. Edited February 10, 2016 by Rain 2
The Nehor Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 2 hours ago, sdc999 said: Alright. This is something that I know as a past mormon I would have detested at the time and after speaking to a couple of very active friends still in the church, it irked them as well. 'honey, how about a nice romantic dinner for the two of us tonight?' 'that would be great but I'll have to pass. I going to the church to sit in judgement of an individual member. I'll get back to you later.' Now this isn't a knock on the process of a disciplinary council but a lack of respect for a member's time. This is something that could have easily been scheduled another day. There are things that need to be done in any organization and I can respect that. Would they have a council meet on Christmas? Easter? Are you kidding? Do you know how much frustration it will save if you can skip this ridiculous holiday? 1
Tacenda Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 52 minutes ago, ALarson said: I don't know if he regrets writing the letter. He's not being disciplined for writing the response he was asked to write (from his CES director), IMO. I would imagine that he is being disciplined for what he's done since he wrote the letter and for trying to make money preaching against the church. Not Runnells, but the CES director regrets asking for it.
bluebell Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 2 hours ago, sdc999 said: Alright. This is something that I know as a past mormon I would have detested at the time and after speaking to a couple of very active friends still in the church, it irked them as well. 'honey, how about a nice romantic dinner for the two of us tonight?' 'that would be great but I'll have to pass. I going to the church to sit in judgement of an individual member. I'll get back to you later.' Now this isn't a knock on the process of a disciplinary council but a lack of respect for a member's time. This is something that could have easily been scheduled another day. There are things that need to be done in any organization and I can respect that. Would they have a council meet on Christmas? Easter? It does make you wonder what the person was thinking that scheduled it for that day. Even though it's a Sunday, it's still Valentine's day-a day when women usually want their hubbies home. 4
ALarson Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 9 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Not Runnells, but the CES director regrets asking for it. Oh...got it And yes, I'm sure he does regret asking Runnells what his questions and concerns were regarding the church. 1
6EQUJ5 Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 8 hours ago, Calm said: "court of love" is not the appropriate term these days (it is used on lds.org once in a talk title back in 72 and referred to in one article in 82), it is usually used in a derogatory fashion, so better just to call it a disciplinary council: https://www.lds.org/topics/church-disciplinary-councils?lang=eng I heard the phrase a lot when I was younger. I still hear it occassionally. Just 10 years ago or so we had a Priesthood lesson on Disciplinary Councils where it was emphasized they were "courts of love." So while critics may abuse the term I think most members know that the preceedings are really done out of love and so when they use the phrase it is in a very positive sense. 1
6EQUJ5 Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 Getting exommunicated must be nice. You get all sorts of attention. Candlelight vigils. You host your own press conference. People buy you free stuff -- like laptops. You start your own Church. And uninformed outsiders treat you like an expert. I'm logging on to facebook right now to spread rumors that my SP has dementia. 2
Johnnie Cake Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 (edited) I've read Runnels press release (kinda weird having a press release for a pending disciplinary council but oh well...guess he's kinda high profile) Any how Runnels claims that he was contacted by his SP and informed that this was coming, Runnels asked for a delay due to his having a family member near death and in hospice...and asked that the SP to hold off until March, according to Runnels the SP agreed to the delay...but then reneged and set it up for the 14th. So if true I do have a few questions that come to mind...if the SP originally had the compassion to hold off on the court, what happened that made him move forward after agreeing to hold off? And 2nd, I know we are told that these courts are local matters but if the SP reneged, was he given instruction from above? Make's me wonder. Runnels is having a gathering tonight in SLC...I may just go out of curiosity Edited February 10, 2016 by Johnnie Cake
Recommended Posts