WHY is Jeremy Runnels Facing Church Discipline?

[rongo]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

But, I've been in courts where the person conducting the court did everything he could to not humiliate the person any more than he already was by just having to be there.  I feel this is how Christ would conduct one of these courts if he actually would ever conduct one.

This is what I am getting at. I am sure that there are instances where the leaders made things uncomfortable and awkward. That hasn't been my experience at all. One example: a sister who confessed to things that pretty clearly were going to lead to excommunication was concerned about what level of detail the stake president or the high council were going to require her to describe. I promised her "no more than what I have," and this was a great relief to her. I only wanted or needed to know how many incidents, what time frame, with whom --- but nothing about the actual details of what she specifically did in the incidents. That kind of stuff didn't affect the severity. The reason I could reassure her that the "higher ups" wouldn't require more detail than I had is because I knew the stake president well and had worked through the process with him and members before. The stake president determines whether it will be stake-level or ward-level, within handbook requirements (MP holders must be at the stake level, unless excommunication is ruled out by him). 

Our stake president had everything at the ward level that could possibly be, thus allowing most people to have their councils before a ward level one (4 people in the bishop's office) instead of a stake-level council (16+ men in the high council room). All of the people I worked with who were either ward or stake level knew that they wouldn't have to tell their long story over again in front of everyone --- that the bishop or stake president would fill them in on things in deliberation, so that any questions would be asked simply to clarify certain things in their minds with a bearing on points they would make in deliberation. Every effort is made to make it comfortable and not-awkward --- and the heavy lifting occurred already through the confession and preparation for the council process. As mentioned, everybody I have worked with was fully on board with the process and had a stake and a say in how things were proceeding or going to proceed. The council didn't come as a shock to them, and they knew who would be there. I always personally delivered the letter with one of my counselors so that the process didn't involve someone who wouldn't be there anyway (e.g., and elders quorum president, etc.). 

Edited February 11, 2016 by rongo

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not sure how a disciplinary court would not have some level of awkwardness about it.  It wouldn't surprise me and I feel blessed I haven't participated in one. 

I attended one as a clerk a number of years ago; a missionary was sent home because of some pre-mission activities.  The disciplinary court was, indeed, awkward and I hope to never attend one again.

Edited February 11, 2016 by ttribe

[Duncan]

38 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Pretty much...its institutional abuse

Yup

Just reflective of my awkward experience with church courts I guess...the perp walk, the awkward need to have the accused give detailed confession AGAIN before the council, the questioning by the council of the accused, the need to have the accused walk around the room shaking hands thanking the council...all icky and unnecessary and extremely unessessary...its just an awful exercise in public shaming and institutional humiliation of the accused

How exactly do they accomplish this?  The whole process is stacked against the defendant and inherently designed to humiliate the accused... Its the WHOLE COURT PROCESS that's defected

Any imagined mitigation is mere wall papering...the entire process is defective and in need of being thrown of the garbage heap

For most, it should be between God and the sinner but some will want some human comfort and human absolution...for these one on one confidential confession (except in those cases where authorities need to be notified) should suffice. Strict confidentiality should be standard...a bishop may require council with respect to haow to help the confessor, but all of that should still maintain the strict confidenciallity of the confessor...except when authorities s=need to be involved.

I have a friend right now who confessed to some stuff she did and she actually wants to get exed, just so her slate can be clean and she can start all over again. I have never been in a church court nor do I hope to ever but I can't imagine being in a legal court because now everyone knows what you did

[ALarson]

23 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

That kind of intimate conduct is not even useful..why would some do that?  I just went to a regular confession/bishopric court kind of thing..and yes, although I was willing to do it as part of my repentance process, it was still uncomfortable..and so very awkward.  The bishop was my neighbor and co-worker..how much more awkward could it get?  Of course it became more awkward when I was confronted by his wife.

His wife should not have even known about the court 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

I was not aware that Runnells had quit his job and was working on this full time.  I can't imagine what he's doing that takes so much time or that he can make a living doing this.  Is he writing a book maybe?  

He described it iirc as taking the CES letter to a whole new level. I need to read more (or maybe not lol) to see what he means by this.  Iirc, there was some sort of October surprise anticipated, but if that ever happened, I must have missed it.

[smac97]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

It's been years, but I have been involved in about 6 church disciplinary courts.  They were not all awful nor were they all wonderful or inspiring.  But, they were all painful (and yes "awkward" is a good word to describe how most in the room feel, from my experience).  But that doesn't mean that it can't still be a loving experience.

I think a lot depends on who is conducting the court.  I've sat in on a few where the person was questioned almost mercilessly and required to give every, single intimate and humiliating detail of his sexual discretion (to the point where it almost became ridiculous and everyone was extremely uncomfortable and squirming in their seats).  I'm sure he had already been through that in private interviews, so why subject him to that in front of a larger group of men?  We knew he had transgressed and we knew what the charges were.  He fully admitted to them and had confessed and was not contesting them.  We needed a few details, but not right down to where he had touched the woman and how many times, etc.

But, I've been in courts where the person conducting the court did everything he could to not humiliate the person any more than he already was by just having to be there.  I feel this is how Christ would conduct one of these courts if he actually would ever conduct one.

So yes, experiences vary.  We can't accuse someone here of not being honest about their experience because it's not the same as ours (not that I've seen that accusation, but I feel it's been inferred).   

In my stake there is nothing like a "perp walk" or "merciless" questioning.  When the person being disciplined is not disputing the grounds for the discipline (the vast majority of disciplinary proceedings fall into this category), the stake president proposes that the person authorize him to speak in his place, to explain and summarize the events and actions which precipitated the proceeding to the other participants on the council.  If the person agrees, the stake president opens the council and recites these events with the person not being present in the room.  The stake president then asks if any of the participants have any additional questions, and also gives them instructions for asking questions of the person (that questions should be respectful, relevant, not unduly invasive, etc.).  The person is then invited into the room and is invited to share his thoughts and perspective.  Then the council members ask any questions they deem appropriate, then the person is asked to wait outside while the council discusses/deliberates and the remainder of the council proceeds.

In my assessment these procedures work very well.  Everything is done with the consent of the individual.  The embarrassment/awkwardness of the individual is minimized.  Sufficient information is conveyed, but the risk of perceived (or even actual) "voyeuristic" questions is minimized.  Decorum and solemnity prevail.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 11, 2016 by smac97

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

His wife should not have even known about the court 

I know..that is one of the reasons I quit going to RS,

[cinepro]

The oddest thing in all of these recent high-profile excommunications is what isn't said.  It's like that old adage "If you were put on trial for being a Mormon, would there be enough evidence to convict you?" 

Well in Runnells' case, as in Dehlin's and Kelly's, it mystifies me why they are protesting the action, or why they didn't leave of their own accord. 

Think about it.  If you're LDS and reading this, imagine that you got a letter in the mail today calling you in for discipline and possible excommuncation.  What would your reaction be?  Depending on your specific circumstances, I suspect it might include any of the following:

"Wait, there's been a mistake.  What is this about?"

"I still go to Church every week.  I believe in Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.  Why am I being excommunicated?"

"This is impossible.  While I have questions about some things and am not perfect, I still support Church leaders, and have faith in Jesus Christ and the doctrines taught by the Church."

It's certainly not anyone's job to make a public defense about their excommunication, but at the point someone is calling for press conferences and vigils, it becomes a little glaring if they haven't started explaining why, exactly, they think they shouldn't be ex'd.  Other than "The Church should let me do whatever I want no matter what", of course.

I honestly don't get it.

I also want to know when Runnells gets his free laptop.  Is there a waiting period, or do they award it right after the Church court?

 

 

Edited February 11, 2016 by cinepro

[ksfisher]

45 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In my stake there is nothing like a "perp walk" or "merciless" questioning.  When the person being disciplined is not disputing the grounds for the discipline (the vast majority of disciplinary proceedings fall into this category), the stake president proposes that the person authorize him to speak in his place, to explain and summarize the events and actions which precipitated the proceeding to the other participants on the council.  If the person agrees, the stake president opens the council and recites these events with the person not being present in the room.  The stake president then asks if any of the participants have any additional questions, and also gives them instructions for asking questions of the person (that questions should be respectful, relevant, not unduly invasive, etc.).  The person is then invited into the room and is invited to share his thoughts and perspective.  Then the council members ask any questions they deem appropriate, then the person is asked to wait outside while the council discusses/deliberates and the remainder of the council proceeds.

In my assessment these procedures work very well.  Everything is done with the consent of the individual.  The embarrassment/awkwardness of the individual is minimized.  Sufficient information is conveyed, but the risk of perceived (or even actual) "voyeuristic" questions is minimized.  Decorum and solemnity prevails.

Thanks,

-Smac

In my experience detailed questions about what they person is going to do in the future are overwhelmingly more prevalent than those about events in the past.  Usually the summary given by the stake president is enough.  The only time, again in my experience, that very detailed questions about past events were asked for was when there were questions regarding finances and the chain of events was important to understand.

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, cinepro said:

The oddest thing in all of these recent high-profile excommunications is what isn't said.  It's like that old adage "If you were put on trial for being a Mormon, would there be enough evidence to convict you?" 

Well in Runnells' case, as in Dehlin's and Kelly's, it mystifies me why they are protesting the action, or why they didn't leave of their own accord. 

...

I honestly don't get it.

Well, as Ra's Al Ghul put it: "Theatricality and deception are powerful agents."

A dissident Latter-day Saint standing up to "The Man" (the leadership of the LDS Church) gets attention.  It's a novelty.  But once the person is excommunicated, the narrative fundamentally changes.  The media is interested in internecine conflicts in Mormonism, perhaps owing to the overt and visible hierarchical structure of the LDS Church and the general tendency for Latter-day Saints to sustain their leaders.  But once an excommunication occurs, the conflict is not longer "internecine," and instead involves the LDS Church and a former member, and a "why I left" narrative that, frankly, is just not noteworthy or newsworthy.  There's nothing new or special or sexy about such narratives.  

As a result, we end up with Kabuki Theater-style histrionics and melodrama from folks like John Dehlin and Jeremy Runnells.  Being a dissident is part of their narrative.  They know they're probably going to lose that part sooner or later.  And in the cases of Dehlin and Runnells, both have now tied their livelihoods to their narratives.  The excommunication is no longer a matter of religious faith.  It's a threat to a money-making venture, which venture needs protecting.  So once the excommunication happens, they can mitigate some of the damage done to their narratives (arising from their loss of status as dissidents) by . . . going out with a bang.  Protests.  Candle light vigils.  Press releases and events.  A last huzzah, if you will.  And given the volume of published statements made by Dehlin/Runnells which demonstrate beyond reasonable dispute their losses of faith, the irony of measures like candle light vigils and press releases becomes all the more manifest.  The last huzzah necessarily entails "theatricality and deception."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 11, 2016 by smac97

[VideoGameJunkie]

I think people like Kate Kelly, John Dehlin, and Jeremy Runnells want to be seen as martyrs for their cause, so that's why they didn't just resign membership.

[Mars]

i'm a little out of the loop with the whole affair.

did the CES director or anyone else ever respond?

[VideoGameJunkie]

2 minutes ago, Mars said:

i'm a little out of the loop with the whole affair.

did the CES director or anyone else ever respond?

No the CES director never responded. He said he read it, but never gave a response to the "questions". FAIR responded though.

[rongo]

43 minutes ago, cinepro said:

It's certainly not anyone's job to make a public defense about their excommunication, but at the point someone is calling for press conferences and vigils, it becomes a little glaring if they haven't started explaining why, exactly, they think they shouldn't be ex'd.  Other than "The Church should let me do whatever I want no matter what", of course.

 

 

This is a very good point. As you point out, it is weird that none of the apostates fight for their membership (i.e., make a case for why they shouldn't be excommunicated). They openly use the build up to the council as a launching point for after the council.

[Johnnie Cake]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

This is a very good point. As you point out, it is weird that none of the apostates fight for their membership (i.e., make a case for why they shouldn't be excommunicated). They openly use the build up to the council as a launching point for after the council.

I believe that Dehlin did...he wanted to remain a member

[Jeanne]

17 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I think people like Kate Kelly, John Dehlin, and Jeremy Runnells want to be seen as martyrs for their cause, so that's why they didn't just resign membership.

I think you may be wrong about that.  A lot of us learn to think for ourselves with the information we learn.  I don't put any of them on a pedestal..nor do i condemn them.  I watch, learn from many things..including here and form my own opinions. 

Edited February 11, 2016 by Jeanne

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I believe that Dehlin did...he wanted to remain a member

He said he did. But then in his published communications with the stake president, etc., he said that he told him he had asked for no contact and to be left alone. 

Not exactly a rousing defense of his membership. And what good is it if you say you "want to remain a member" but publicly criticize and disbelieve in the Church?

[Russell C McGregor]

22 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

right now I'm kind of disgusted with both sides...I wish the church would have just ignored Runnells and left him alone and I wish Runnells wouldn't have turned this into a press circus .  As I've said earlier I respect the churches right to police its boundaries and accept or reject whomever they want within the church...but using a church court as their chosen means to remove someone from the church is barbaric...if you don't want them in... just remove them, send them a form letter and be done with it period.  Church courts are an expression of barbaric patriarchal power over fellow humans, designed to bring them to bare and submission to the mindset of church authority. 

Alternatively, they could be a way to ensure that actions are not taken hastily and without giving the member a chance to tell his side of the story.

"Barbaric patriarchal power over fellow humans, designed to bring them to bare and submission to the mindset of church authority?"

Have you been taking lessons from Baghdad Bob, aka Comical Ali?

 

[Jeanne]

I don't want anyone to show up Sunday..figure there has got to be better things to do on Valentine's Day

[Gray]

23 minutes ago, rongo said:

He said he did. But then in his published communications with the stake president, etc., he said that he told him he had asked for no contact and to be left alone. 

Not exactly a rousing defense of his membership. 

That's probably true of most members of the church, though. 

Edited February 11, 2016 by Gray

[ksfisher]

26 minutes ago, rongo said:

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

That's probably true of most members of the church, though. 

He said he did. But then in his published communications with the stake president, etc., he said that he told him he had asked for no contact and to be left alone. 

Not exactly a rousing defense of his membership. And what good is it if you say you "want to remain a member" but publicly criticize and disbelieve in the Church?

Gray, are you saying most members of the church don't want any contact with the church?

Edited February 11, 2016 by ksfisher
clarity

[smac97]

22 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

right now I'm kind of disgusted with both sides...

That does not seem like a reasonable assessment of the situation.

Quote

I wish the church would have just ignored Runnells and left him alone

First, the Church has sent him a letter and asked him to attend a meeting.  That is all.  The Church is not being unduly intrusive in his life.

Second, the Church cannot ignore apostasy and remain compliant with its divine mandate:

• D&C 50:8-9 - "But the hypocrites shall be detected and shall be cut off, either in life or in death, even as I will; and wo unto them who are cut off from my church, for the same are overcome of the world. Wherefore, let every man beware lest he do that which is not in truth and righteousness before me."
• D&C 64:34-37 - "Behold, the Lord requireth the heart and a willing mind; and the willing and obedient shall eat the good of the land of Zion in these last days. And the rebellious shall be cut off out of the land of Zion, and shall be sent away, and shall not inherit the land. For, verily I say that the rebellious are not of the blood of Ephraim, wherefore they shall be plucked out. Behold, I, the Lord, have made my church in these last days like unto a judge sitting on a hill, or in a high place, to judge the nations."
• D&C 104:6-10 - "For I, the Lord, am not to be mocked in these things. And all this that the innocent among you may not be condemned with the unjust; and that the guilty among you may not escape; because I, the Lord, have promised unto you a crown of glory at my right hand. Therefore, inasmuch as you are found transgressors, you cannot escape my wrath in your lives. Inasmuch as ye are cut off for transgression, ye cannot escape the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption. And I now give unto you power from this very hour, that if any man among you, of the order, is found a transgressor and repenteth not of the evil, that ye shall deliver him over unto the buffetings of Satan; and he shall not have power to bring evil upon you."
• D&C 51:1-2 - "Hearken unto me, saith the Lord your God, and I will speak unto my servant Edward Partridge, and give unto him directions; for it must needs be that he receive directions how to organize this people. For it must needs be that they be organized according to my laws; if otherwise, they will be cut off."
• D&C 63:60-64 - "Behold, I am Alpha and Omega, even Jesus Christ. Wherefore, let all men beware how they take my name in their lips. For behold, verily I say, that many there be who are under this condemnation, who use the name of the Lord, and use it in vain, having not authority. Wherefore, let the church repent of their sins, and I, the Lord, will own them; otherwise they shall be cut off. Remember that that which cometh from above is sacred, and must be spoken with care, and by constraint of the Spirit; and in this there is no condemnation, and ye receive the Spirit through prayer; wherefore, without this there remaineth condemnation."
• D&C 133:63 - "And upon them that hearken not to the voice of the Lord shall be fulfilled that which was written by the prophet Moses, that they should be cut off from among the people."
• D&C 85:11 - "And they who are of the High Priesthood, whose names are not found written in the book of the law, or that are found to have apostatized, or to have been cut off from the church, as well as the lesser priesthood, or the members, in that day shall not find an inheritance among the saints of the Most High."
• D&C 1:14 - "And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people."
• Alma 1:24 - "The hearts of many were hardened, and their names were blotted out."
• 3 Ne. 18:31 - "If he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people."
• D&C 42:24 - "Adulterers who do not repent shall be cast out."
• D&C 42:28 - "He that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out."
• D&C 41:5 - "He that receiveth my law and doeth it, the same is my disciple; and he that saith he receiveth it and doeth it not, the same is not my disciple, and shall be cast out from among you."
• Helaman 12:25 - "And I would that all men might be saved. But we read that in the great and last day there are some who shall be cast out, yea, who shall be cast off from the presence of the Lord."
• 3 Nephi 14:15 - "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."

Third, the Church's actions relative to Bro. Runnells are compliant with both the law of the land and the laws of the Church.  See D&C 134:10 - "We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship."

Fourth, this board had a long, long discussion about this general topic last year: Apostasy, Boundary Maintenance, And Strong Communities.  I recommend that you read it, as it presents a number of reasoned and reasonable points on this issue.

Fifth, I think the following statement reflects the sentiments of most active Latter-day Saints as pertaining to people like Kate Kelly, John Dehlin, Jeremy Runnells, etc. (from the linked discussion above): "I don't want them to leave the Church. I want them in it. I want everyone in it. But we are a community of faith. We cohere around faith. When we disregard apostasy we weaken our community."  So if a member of the Church begins to speak out against the Church, and if he publishes these statements to the world, and if those statements amount to false doctrine or some other manifestation of apostasy, and if those in authority (that is, priesthood leaders acting within their stewardship, in accordance with the laws and procedures promulgated in scripture and by the Church, and under the direction of the Spirit) make such a determination, and if the person refuses to repent, then it appears that the Church must proceed according to the divine mandate given to it by God.  If you feel otherwise, I would appreciate an explanation as to your reasoning.

Quote

As I've said earlier I respect the churches right to police its boundaries and accept or reject whomever they want within the church...but using a church court as their chosen means to remove someone from the church is barbaric...if you don't want them in... just remove them, send them a form letter and be done with it period. 

What is "barbaric" about convening a meeting?  Seriously, I'd like to know.  This comes across as absurd hyperbole on your part.

Also, you seem to be suggesting that the Church summarily excommunicate people, without giving them an opportunity to speak on their own behalf.  How can you justify such a system as superior to the Church's current practice of letting a person who is under discipline explain or represent his position, deny the charges against him, present defenses, etc.?

Quote

Church courts are an expression of barbaric patriarchal power over fellow humans, designed to bring them to bare and submission to the mindset of church authority. 

With respect, that's a load of crapola.  It is overwrought nonsense.  Melodramatic twadddle.  The Church is a voluntary association of like-minded persons.  It has a strong, self-imposed constraint on the extent of its authority in D&C 134:10 ("We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship."). 

The Church's doctrines and policies pertaining to discipline involve a few meetings, statements made and kept in confidence, and so on.  There is no good faith basis for using "barbaric" in any way to describe the Church's behavior in such matters.  None.  I think less of you for making such outrageous and false statements.

Quote

I only wish that we could all just get along with each other and fine common ground...I hate all of this us vs them bull***...I'm really just tied of it all

Says the fellow who just accused the LDS Church and its members of being "barbaric."  How you can formulate such offensive and outrageous and false statements and publicly throw them in the face of faithful Latter-day Saints, and then in the next sentence state that you "wish that we could all just get along with each other and fin[d] common ground"?

Have you no decency, sir?

-Smac

Edited February 11, 2016 by smac97

[Johnnie Cake]

33 minutes ago, rongo said:

He said he did. But then in his published communications with the stake president, etc., he said that he told him he had asked for no contact and to be left alone. 

Not exactly a rousing defense of his membership. And what good is it if you say you "want to remain a member" but publicly criticize and disbelieve in the Church?

I'm not in a mood to defend John...  The church can kick out anyone they want to...Its their right...but I find it sad that someone who wants to remain a member irrespective of their reason is excommunicated. 

[Johnnie Cake]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That does not seem like a reasonable assessment of the situation.

First, the Church has sent him a letter and asked him to attend a meeting.  That is all.  The Church is not being unduly intrusive in his life.

Second, the Church cannot ignore apostasy and remain compliant with its divine mandate:

• D&C 50:8-9 - "But the hypocrites shall be detected and shall be cut off, either in life or in death, even as I will; and wo unto them who are cut off from my church, for the same are overcome of the world. Wherefore, let every man beware lest he do that which is not in truth and righteousness before me."
• D&C 64:34-37 - "Behold, the Lord requireth the heart and a willing mind; and the willing and obedient shall eat the good of the land of Zion in these last days. And the rebellious shall be cut off out of the land of Zion, and shall be sent away, and shall not inherit the land. For, verily I say that the rebellious are not of the blood of Ephraim, wherefore they shall be plucked out. Behold, I, the Lord, have made my church in these last days like unto a judge sitting on a hill, or in a high place, to judge the nations."
• D&C 104:6-10 - "For I, the Lord, am not to be mocked in these things. And all this that the innocent among you may not be condemned with the unjust; and that the guilty among you may not escape; because I, the Lord, have promised unto you a crown of glory at my right hand. Therefore, inasmuch as you are found transgressors, you cannot escape my wrath in your lives. Inasmuch as ye are cut off for transgression, ye cannot escape the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption. And I now give unto you power from this very hour, that if any man among you, of the order, is found a transgressor and repenteth not of the evil, that ye shall deliver him over unto the buffetings of Satan; and he shall not have power to bring evil upon you."
• D&C 51:1-2 - "Hearken unto me, saith the Lord your God, and I will speak unto my servant Edward Partridge, and give unto him directions; for it must needs be that he receive directions how to organize this people. For it must needs be that they be organized according to my laws; if otherwise, they will be cut off."
• D&C 63:60-64 - "Behold, I am Alpha and Omega, even Jesus Christ. Wherefore, let all men beware how they take my name in their lips. For behold, verily I say, that many there be who are under this condemnation, who use the name of the Lord, and use it in vain, having not authority. Wherefore, let the church repent of their sins, and I, the Lord, will own them; otherwise they shall be cut off. Remember that that which cometh from above is sacred, and must be spoken with care, and by constraint of the Spirit; and in this there is no condemnation, and ye receive the Spirit through prayer; wherefore, without this there remaineth condemnation."
• D&C 133:63 - "And upon them that hearken not to the voice of the Lord shall be fulfilled that which was written by the prophet Moses, that they should be cut off from among the people."
• D&C 85:11 - "And they who are of the High Priesthood, whose names are not found written in the book of the law, or that are found to have apostatized, or to have been cut off from the church, as well as the lesser priesthood, or the members, in that day shall not find an inheritance among the saints of the Most High."
• D&C 1:14 - "And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people."
• Alma 1:24 - "The hearts of many were hardened, and their names were blotted out."
• 3 Ne. 18:31 - "If he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people."
• D&C 42:24 - "Adulterers who do not repent shall be cast out."
• D&C 42:28 - "He that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out."
• D&C 41:5 - "He that receiveth my law and doeth it, the same is my disciple; and he that saith he receiveth it and doeth it not, the same is not my disciple, and shall be cast out from among you."
• Helaman 12:25 - "And I would that all men might be saved. But we read that in the great and last day there are some who shall be cast out, yea, who shall be cast off from the presence of the Lord."
• 3 Nephi 14:15 - "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."

Third, the Church's actions relative to Bro. Runnells are compliant with both the law of the land and the laws of the Church.  See D&C 134:10 - "We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship."

Fourth, this board had a long, long discussion about this general topic last year: Apostasy, Boundary Maintenance, And Strong Communities.  I recommend that you read it, as it presents a number of reasoned and reasonable points on this issue.

Fifth, I think the following statement reflects the sentiments of most active Latter-day Saints as pertaining to people like Kate Kelly, John Dehlin, Jeremy Runnells, etc. (from the linked discussion above): "I don't want them to leave the Church. I want them in it. I want everyone in it. But we are a community of faith. We cohere around faith. When we disregard apostasy we weaken our community."  So if a member of the Church begins to speak out against the Church, and if he publishes these statements to the world, and if those statements amount to false doctrine or some other manifestation of apostasy, and if those in authority (that is, priesthood leaders acting within their stewardship, in accordance with the laws and procedures promulgated in scripture and by the Church, and under the direction of the Spirit) make such a determination, and if the person refuses to repent, then it appears that the Church must proceed according to the divine mandate given to it by God.  If you feel otherwise, I would appreciate an explanation as to your reasoning.

What is "barbaric" about convening a meeting?  Seriously, I'd like to know.  This comes across as absurd hyperbole on your part.

Also, you seem to be suggesting that the Church summarily excommunicate people, without giving them an opportunity to speak on their own behalf.  How can you justify such a system as superior to the Church's current practice of letting a person who is under discipline explain or represent his position, deny the charges against him, present defenses, etc.?

With respect, that's a load of crapola.  It is overwrought nonsense.  Melodramatic twadddle.  The Church is a voluntary association of like-minded persons.  It has a strong, self-imposed constraint on the extent of its authority in D&C 134:10 ("We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.")

The Church's doctrines and policies pertaining to discipline involve a few meetings, statements made and kept in confidence, and so on.  There is no good faith basis for using "barbaric" in any way to describe the Church's behavior in such matters.  None.  I think less of you for making such outrageous and false statements.

Says the fellow who just accused the LDS Church and its members of being "barbaric."  How you can formulate such offensive and outrageous and false statements and publicly throw them in the face of faithful Latter-day Saints, and then in the next sentence state that you "wish that we could all just get along with each other and fin[d] common ground"?

Have you no decency, sir?

-Smac

You've obviously put a lot of work and thought into this reply...thanks for that...but I honestly don't care to debate my perspective on the question of the humanity of church courts...I hold to my view.  In the courts I was involved...they were nothing more than institutional abuse...I'm embarrassed and regret ever having been involved with them.  I beg forgiveness form those who submitted themselves to this barbarous religious practice seeking absolution...they deserved better from a church that includes the name of Jesus Christ in its logo

Edited February 11, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[The Nehor]

18 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I'm not in a mood to defend John...  The church can kick out anyone they want to...Its their right...but I find it sad that someone who wants to remain a member irrespective of their reason is excommunicated. 

I find it right and fitting.