WHY is Jeremy Runnels Facing Church Discipline?

[carbon dioxide]

It still just amazes me that people give too much credit to Jeremy.  All he did was repackage only anti-mormon arguments with very little original material.  I bet at least half of the posters here could do the same thing he did and probably some would do a better job.  

[carbon dioxide]

My almost 14 year old son has been exposed to a number of anti-mormon stuff.  He is asking questions and having some problems.  I don't see a big deal about it as its part of the learning process.  Having studied this stuff on and off over the past 20 years may actually pay some benefit.  We have not been the greatest examples for him.  We have not done any family home evening and some other stuff.  I see this as an opportunity to start having FHE and address some of this stuff in it.  

[sjdawg]

7 hours ago, ALarson said:

I think it's common on most blogs or websites, unfortunately.  It's their prerogative, but it doesn't make for very interesting conversations when it just becomes an echo chamber.  It goes both ways though, for sure.

I find the Deseret News the hardest place I have come across to get a comment approved.  I have a hard time landing on their criteria.    I have some fairly benign comments rejected and some more controversial ones approved.   I've stopped trying to guess which comments will get through and which ones won't

[sjdawg]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

I think it is more moneymaking ventures to destroy people's faith are problematic.

Also those to take advantage of people's faith with "spurious materials".

 

spurious materials is a matter of interpretation.   I'm sure we could find more than a few organizations that would consider the Book of Mormon to be "spurious" but that doesn't make it true.

[rongo]

3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I'm glad your experiences with courts have all been so positive

What negative ones have you had?

All of mine --- every single one --- have involved people who voluntarily cooperated with the lead up and the council itself. They're never "fun," but all of the people I've been in councils with (in three different wards, two as bishop, and one as a counselor) were on the same page as far as it being necessary, proper, and exactly what was needed.

So, I'm wondering what negative experiences you have had.

[sjdawg]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Dehlin showed up for his and wanted to have a "note taker" present after he was told he couldn't record it. 

It doesn't seem unreasonable to document important points of discussion.   

Edited February 11, 2016 by sjdawg

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Now I'm sure some members are going to have their bubble burst. 

In regards to what?

[Johnnie Cake]

14 minutes ago, rongo said:

What negative ones have you had?

All of mine --- every single one --- have involved people who voluntarily cooperated with the lead up and the council itself. They're never "fun," but all of the people I've been in councils with (in three different wards, two as bishop, and one as a counselor) were on the same page as far as it being necessary, proper, and exactly what was needed.

So, I'm wondering what negative experiences you have had.

I've been involved in probably more than 2 dozen bout 1/4 in bishopric the rest while in stake high council. Everyone was awkward for all involved some extremely so. I don't want to exaggerate I honestly can't think of a single one I'd want to be involved with again 

[Tacenda]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

In regards to what?

It could be as simple as learning of JS's particular polygamy to the different versions of the First Vision.  Happens all the time, I was in that nice embryonic bubble.  Just hope they don't wind up like me.  Of course it might help many grow, a lot more than they ever could have before.

[rongo]

7 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I've been involved in probably more than 2 dozen bout 1/4 in bishopric the rest while in stake high council. Everyone was awkward for all involved some extremely so. I don't want to exaggerate I honestly can't think of a single one I'd want to be involved with again 

The fact that you feel that every single one of the "24+" you have participated in was "awkward . . . some extremely so" is very telling. Every single one? From that large of a sample? You're a perfect target for the "disciplinary council as an atrocity" meme.

I feel that every single one of the many I have been involved with was not awkward. Sad, and draining, but awkward not at all. And those who were the "victims" of them wouldn't describe them as awkward.

I haven't had one where the person denied the charges or were trying to get social media/regular media attention. That I can see as awkward. As mentioned, all of my people voluntarily confessed and chose to participate in the council. They knew exactly why it was being held, what likely outcomes would mean, and how they would get back into full fellowship or have covenants restored. What would possibly be awkward about that if one has a full perspective on the why and the how?

I think you're looking back on your past experiences and service through the lens of where you are now, and you've lost a lot of things you used to have. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, sjdawg said:

I don't understand why Runnel's even cares if he is excommunicated.  He clearly doesn't believe in the LDS Church so what value does his membership have to him?    

smac97's signature line suggests one distinct possibility:

Quote

--"We will see those who profess membership but secretly are plotting and trying to lead people not to follow the leadership that the Lord has set up to preside in this church." --Elder Harold B. Lee

 

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

It could be as simple as learning of JS's particular polygamy to the different versions of the First Vision....

Thought you were talking about something about Runnells himself and the excommunication bursting the bubble, sorry for misunderstanding.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Calm

[VideoGameJunkie]

Fox13 covered it. http://fox13now.com/2016/02/10/lds-author-says-he-faces-excommunication-after-writing-letter-to-a-ces-director/

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

smac97's signature line suggests one distinct possibility:

 

Given that his livelihood now depends on how popular and credible he comes across (in the letter itself, but also how it is promoted), he may be overly interested in putting up a certain appearance to the world to attract attention.  It is unfortunately he just couldn't leave it as a hobby and just put a few hours a week into it if he wanted to keep it up.

It doesn't come across to me as something that either requires or deserves (quality wise) someone devoting a full time career to it.  It just struck me...someone is devoting 40 hours a week supposedly to putting this stuff out.  And this is what results. (and even that is with the help of others with his crowdsourcing for answers, getting others to translate for him, etc)

He must be counting his time talking to people about it as part of the job...gosh, I hope so.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Calm

[volgadon]

50 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

It could be as simple as learning of JS's particular polygamy to the different versions of the First Vision.  Happens all the time, I was in that nice embryonic bubble.  Just hope they don't wind up like me.  Of course it might help many grow, a lot more than they ever could have before.

Have you been to the church history museum lately? There is a new film there which mentions that there are multiple first vision accounts.

[Hamba Tuhan]

19 minutes ago, volgadon said:

Have you been to the church history museum lately? There is a new film there which mentions that there are multiple first vision accounts.

Quick, someone excommunicate the church history museum!

[Tacenda]

Yes, I've recently been to the museum.  Was reading the other day about someone finding out by seeing the church essays, so that was why I put that there.  

Edited February 11, 2016 by Tacenda

[ALarson]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Given that his livelihood now depends on how popular and credible he comes across (in the letter itself, but also how it is promoted), he may be overly interested in putting up a certain appearance to the world to attract attention.  It is unfortunately he just couldn't leave it as a hobby and just put a few hours a week into it if he wanted to keep it up.

It doesn't come across to me as something that either requires or deserves (quality wise) someone devoting a full time career to it.  It just struck me...someone is devoting 40 hours a week supposedly to putting this stuff out.  And this is what results. (and even that is with the help of others with his crowdsourcing for answers, getting others to translate for him, etc)

He must be counting his time talking to people about it as part of the job...gosh, I hope so.

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?  

[Johnnie Cake]

10 hours ago, rongo said:

The fact that you feel that every single one of the "24+" you have participated in was "awkward . . . some extremely so" is very telling. Every single one? From that large of a sample? You're a perfect target for the "disciplinary council as an atrocity" meme.

I feel that every single one of the many I have been involved with was not awkward. Sad, and draining, but awkward not at all. And those who were the "victims" of them wouldn't describe them as awkward.

I haven't had one where the person denied the charges or were trying to get social media/regular media attention. That I can see as awkward. As mentioned, all of my people voluntarily confessed and chose to participate in the council. They knew exactly why it was being held, what likely outcomes would mean, and how they would get back into full fellowship or have covenants restored. What would possibly be awkward about that if one has a full perspective on the why and the how?

I think you're looking back on your past experiences and service through the lens of where you are now, and you've lost a lot of things you used to have. 

Probably not the thread to pursue this subject...but yes awkward, uncomfortable, invasive, unnecessary, spiritually damaging are all terms that come to mind...I think if we adopted the Catholic model of one on one confession in the rarest of occasions that would suffice.  But the current process of parading individuals in front of the entire SP and HC is absolutely terrible, humiliating to all parties involved but mostly to the party whom the court is being held for...I regret ever participating in the process...and to this day feel awkward when I run into one of the people who had to come to one I was involved with...they're terrible

Edited February 11, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Kevin Christensen]

3 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Probably not the thread to pursue this subject...but yes awkward, uncomfortable, invasive, unnecessary, spiritually damaging are all terms that come to mind...I think if we adopted the Catholic model of one on one confession in the rarest of occasions that would suffice.  But the current process of parading individuals in front of the entire SP and HC is absolutely terrible, humiliating to all parties involved but mostly to the party whom the court is being held for...I regret ever participating in the process...and to this day feel awkward when I run into one of the people who had to come to one I was involved with...they're terrible

The point of confession in recovery practice is to reduce shame rather than inflict it.  Secrecy and shame are both integral elements of addiction.  I've attended several courts and I would not describe any of them fun, but none of them as a parade.  I've seen parades, which work best on public streets, not behind closed doors. John Bradshaw distinguishes between toxic shame (which says, "I am a mistake") and healthy shame which says "I am human and therefore need boundaries."

Without confession and boundaries, there is no accountability, and therefore, no motive or responsibility to change.  The opposite of open confession is closed secrecy and all addictions thrive on secrecy.  A key element of toxic shame are secrets about which a person feels, "If anyone knew, they would reject me."

A court does not have to be the sole focus, but ought to be understood as one part of a process of healing.  Setting bones and pulling rotten teeth might feeling like torture, but if considered in a broader context, is part of a process of healing.  A person who goes through the entire process will find that people who know the secrets will accept you, if you demonstrate the desire to do what it takes to change.  A person who doesn't want to change will, of course, view things from a different angle.

Jesus seemed to understand this.  Hence, he encouraged confession and accountability and boundaries defined in terms of covenants.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[stemelbow]

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. 

[rongo]

33 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Probably not the thread to pursue this subject...but yes awkward, uncomfortable, invasive, unnecessary, spiritually damaging are all terms that come to mind...I think if we adopted the Catholic model of one on one confession in the rarest of occasions that would suffice.  But the current process of parading individuals in front of the entire SP and HC is absolutely terrible, humiliating to all parties involved but mostly to the party whom the court is being held for...I regret ever participating in the process...and to this day feel awkward when I run into one of the people who had to come to one I was involved with...they're terrible

It sounds like you think any level of church discipline is de facto awkward. Even confession to a bishop/stake president (without a disciplinary council), since "one on one confession in the rarest of occasions . . . would suffice," in your view. Your use of words like "parading" also tells more about where you're at than the process itself.

It is embarrassing for the persons called to go through the disciplinary process, and the leaders involved do everything they can to minimize this. I'm sorry that you didn't feel any of this mitigation, but I'm not surprised, because you find the existence of the process at all to be "absolutely terrible, humiliating," and awkward. 

What would you replace confession and church courts with? How would you do it if it were up to you.

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

It sounds like you think any level of church discipline is de facto awkward.

Pretty much...its institutional abuse

Quote

Even confession to a bishop/stake president (without a disciplinary council), since "one on one confession in the rarest of occasions . . . would suffice," in your view.

Yup

Quote

Your use of words like "parading" also tells more about where you're at than the process itself.

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

Quote

It is embarrassing for the persons called to go through the disciplinary process, and the leaders involved do everything they can to minimize this.

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

Quote

I'm sorry that you didn't feel any of this mitigation, but I'm not surprised, because you find the existence of the process at all to be "absolutely terrible, humiliating," and awkward. 

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

Quote

What would you replace confession and church courts with? How would you do it if it were up to you.

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.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[ALarson]

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).   

[Jeanne]

10 minutes 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).   

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.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Jeanne