WHY is Jeremy Runnels Facing Church Discipline?

[consiglieri]

3 hours 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'm not certain about that, VGJ.

There are legitimate reasons people have for wanting to remain a member of the LDS Church other than believing its truth claims.

[The Nehor]

Just now, consiglieri said:

I'm not certain about that, VGJ.

There are legitimate reasons people have for wanting to remain a member of the LDS Church other than believing its truth claims.

Legitimacy for their criticism seems to be a common one but we try to nip that in the bud. They howl a lot about it though.

[consiglieri]

Just now, The Nehor said:

Legitimacy for their criticism seems to be a common one but we try to nip that in the bud. They howl a lot about it though.

I think the legitimacy of criticisms should be weighed on the basis of the criticism itself rather than who is making it.

For instance, I think Jeremy went overboard in the CES letter by including some arguments against the LDS Church that are not so strong, in my opinion.

One of these would his ellipses-riddled comparison of the Book of Mormon with "The Late War."

I never read his CES Letter the whole way through because after the first few pages, it just seemed like a condensed version of pretty much every argument against Mormonism made in the past 185-years.

Been there.

Done that.

Long ago.

[Russell C McGregor]

17 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I think the legitimacy of criticisms should be weighed on the basis of the criticism itself rather than who is making it.

So it should, but they are the ones marketing themselves as Latter-day Saints sharing their "insider" perspectives with other Latter-day Saints.

Which marketing legitimises the Church's disciplinary stance.

 

[Jeanne]

Does anyone have an opinion on the postponement of the DS for Jeremy?  I think it was just for Love..Valentine's Day.

[RevTestament]

29 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I think the legitimacy of criticisms should be weighed on the basis of the criticism itself rather than who is making it.

For instance, I think Jeremy went overboard in the CES letter by including some arguments against the LDS Church that are not so strong, in my opinion.

One of these would his ellipses-riddled comparison of the Book of Mormon with "The Late War."

I am going to help out Jeremy here because he missed the true book the Book of Mormon came from:

Snorri Sturluson's *Heimskringla: History of the Kings of Norway* which was written in the 13th century. One only need consider the astounding number of "parallels" to know that Jeremy is wrong about "Late War" - indeed there is a book with many more parallels - all these parallels all but prove Joseph couldn't have gotten the Book of Mormon from "Late War" because there are many more parallels in my find!!! I wonder if anyone has watched Jeremy's ridiculous video on the subject and the literally hundreds of books computer searches have found with similar phrases to the Book of Mormon. That's right. Obviously, Joseph Smith must have read them all and skilfully plagiarized from all of them!! The astounding number of similar phrases used proves it!! or that at least the Book of Mormon was written in the King James style like all these other books complete with their phrases peculiar to King James English....thereby proving that Joseph Smith plagiarized King James English!!! yeah, that's the ticket!!!! I think I'll write me a book about that and make myself rich....

[Russell C McGregor]

31 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Does anyone have an opinion on the postponement of the DS for Jeremy?  I think it was just for Love..Valentine's Day.

I don't know. But I'm certain of one thing: it will be made to reflect badly upon the Church. Somehow.

 

[VideoGameJunkie]

His council has been postponed from this Sunday until March.

[Gray]

15 hours ago, ksfisher said:

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

Yes, I think that's probably true. That's my experience when visiting inactive members (most members are inactive)

[Gray]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

Demagoguery.  That's all you're doing here.  There is no reasoning.  No facts.  No analysis.  No discussion.  No weighing of argument and evidence.  Just emotion.  Anger.  Vitriol.  Demagoguery.

This isn't healthy.  It isn't productive.  It isn't right.  So let's stop where we are.  Let's take a breather.  Perhaps on another day we can try this again.  I wish you well.

Thanks,

-Smac

smac97, there are no facts to be debated. You have different opinions about the rightness of the excommunication process. Neither of your opinions can be defended factually.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Yes, I think that's probably true. That's my experience when visiting inactive members (most members are inactive)

Can you please define "most?"

You're not wrong; I'm just curious where you put the dividing line between active and inactive.   >50% ?

The other issue (where I do think you're wrong) is your claim that most members do not want any contact from the Church. We do have a lot of inactives (point conceded), but many of them (most?) don't specifically want no contact so much as they don't want to make and keep the commitments of active membership. Many of the inactives I know are actually well-disposed towards the Church, and gracious and kind when visited, but don't want to actively attend and serve. There's a difference there.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

Can you please define "most?"

You're not wrong; I'm just curious where you put the dividing line between active and inactive.   >50% ?

The other issue (where I do think you're wrong) is your claim that most members do not want any contact from the Church. We do have a lot of inactives (point conceded), but many of them (most?) don't specifically want no contact so much as they don't want to make and keep the commitments of active membership. Many of the inactives I know are actually well-disposed towards the Church, and gracious and kind when visited, but don't want to actively attend and serve. There's a difference there.

I've learned that many who are gracious and kind when visited are just gracious and kind by nature, but most often would prefer the Church leave them be, whether they say it or not. 

[Gray]

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

Can you please define "most?"

You're not wrong; I'm just curious where you put the dividing line between active and inactive.   >50% ?

The other issue (where I do think you're wrong) is your claim that most members do not want any contact from the Church. We do have a lot of inactives (point conceded), but many of them (most?) don't specifically want no contact so much as they don't want to make and keep the commitments of active membership. Many of the inactives I know are actually well-disposed towards the Church, and gracious and kind when visited, but don't want to actively attend and serve. There's a difference there.

The numbers I've seen are about 35% activity worldwide. Probably higher in more heavily Mormon areas. Definitely lower in Latin America and Europe. 

I can't read people's minds of course. Some inactive people I've meet seem happy to see members coming to visit, but in my experience that's the exception, not the rule. But of course, my anecdotal experience can't be generalized with any confidence of accuracy. 

[rongo]

.

[rongo]

24 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I've learned that many who are gracious and kind when visited are just gracious and kind by nature, but most often would prefer the Church leave them be, whether they say it or not. 

But how's anyone supposed to know that, Napoleon?

This is undoubtedly true, but if they're nice and let us keep coming back, how can you just assume that they probably want to be left alone, anyway?

And their version of wanting to be left alone (if that is the case) is much different from Dehlin whining that he had formally asked his leaders not to contact him? Isn't it?

[stemelbow]

Just now, rongo said:

But how's anyone supposed to know that, Napoleon?

This is undoubtedly true, but if they're nice and let us keep coming back, how can you just assume that they probably want to be left alone, anyway?

And their version of wanting to be left alone (if that is the case) is much different from Dehlin whining that he had formally asked his leaders not to contact him? Isn't it?

I'm just going by my experience.  When you befriend people they tend to tell you how the really feel. 

[rongo]

We just did tithing settlement not too long ago. There are members who don't pay tithing, but who attend semi-regularly. There are also completely inactive members as far as attendance and service, but who scrupulously pay a full tithing. Which of these are inactive, or more inactive than the other? It's a good question, but in the end, I'm grateful for their connection and loyalty to the Church, even if they aren't as active as I am. 

I'm also grateful for completely inactive members (by any definition), who are kind and gracious people, even if they're "just being nice." That's one thing that serving in the Church teaches you --- the value of genuinely good people.

[consiglieri]

On ‎2‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 3:32 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm suspicious of a hostile party and attention seeker wanting to keep such a record of a confidential proceeding and what he intends to do with said record. 

The solution is not to forbid the person being excommunicated from recording the proceeding.

This is done by organizations who do not want others to know what actually transpired, and usually for less than honorable reasons.

Organizations operating in good faith under such circumstances provide that an official and complete record of the proceedings be recorded.

That way, if the person being excommunicated plays fast and loose with the facts, the official record can be produced.

It isn't rocket science.

[stemelbow]

Just now, consiglieri said:

The solution is not to forbid the person being excommunicated from recording the proceeding.

This is done by organizations who do not want others to know what actually transpired, and usually for less than honorable reasons.

Organizations operating in good faith under such circumstances provide that an official and complete record of the proceedings be recorded.

That way, if the person being excommunicated plays fast and loose with the facts, the official record can be produced.

It isn't rocket science.

Agreed.  Open, honest, forthcoming, sharing...are good things we should practice.  Hidden, closed, secret...not so good.  I get some would prefer their laundry not be aired, but if they want it to be so aired, let it happen. 

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

But how's anyone supposed to know that, Napoleon?

 

Trying to channel Kip I see.

 

Uncle Rico: So what do you think?

Kip: It's pretty cool, I guess.

Uncle Rico: Ohhhh, man I wish I could go back in time. I'd take state.

Napoleon Dynamite: This is pretty much the worst video ever made.

Kip: Napoleon, like anyone can even know that.

Uncle Rico: You know what, Napoleon? You can leave.

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

The solution is not to forbid the person being excommunicated from recording the proceeding.

This is done by organizations who do not want others to know what actually transpired, and usually for less than honorable reasons.

Organizations operating in good faith under such circumstances provide that an official and complete record of the proceedings be recorded.

That way, if the person being excommunicated plays fast and loose with the facts, the official record can be produced.

It isn't rocket science.

The problem with that is that the church would have to also record the proceedings (otherwise, there would be no protection from someone playing fast and loose if that person was the only one who had a copy of what actually happened).

Then the church would have to keep these recordings indefinitely (because they would never know when it might be needed), passing them on to bishop after bishop or storing them somewhere secure.  The church would likely be held responsible for keeping these recordings confidential in case the other person never disclosed their's and that would become difficult to guarantee after a period of time and depending on how many people had access to them.

And this doesn't even begin to consider those people who take part in the disciplinary counsel who also have a right to confidentiality and who would have no control over either of the recordings being taken, when they might be used, or how they might be revealed.

That's a lot of assumption of risk for the church for very little reward.

[stemelbow]

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The problem with that is that the church would have to also record the proceedings (otherwise, there would be no protection from someone playing fast and loose if that person was the only one who had a copy of what actually happened).

Then the church would have to keep these recordings indefinitely (because they would never know when it might be needed), passing them on to bishop after bishop or storing them somewhere secure.  The church would likely be held responsible for keeping these recordings confidential in case the other person never disclosed their's and that would become difficult to guarantee after a period of time and depending on how many people had access to them.

And this doesn't even begin to consider those people who take part in the disciplinary counsel who also have a right to confidentiality and who would have no control over either of the recordings being taken, when they might be used, or how they might be revealed.

That's a lot of assumption of risk for the church for very little reward.

You got me wondering how common disciplinary councils are.  I had imagined them to be very rare, but thinking on it maybe they are more common than I thought.  On average, would someone say, how often do they conduct disciplinary councils?  Anyone know or anyone with experience care to share?

[Mystery Meat]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The problem with that is that the church would have to also record the proceedings (otherwise, there would be no protection from someone playing fast and loose if that person was the only one who had a copy of what actually happened).

Then the church would have to keep these recordings indefinitely (because they would never know when it might be needed), passing them on to bishop after bishop or storing them somewhere secure.  The church would likely be held responsible for keeping these recordings confidential in case the other person never disclosed their's and that would become difficult to guarantee after a period of time and depending on how many people had access to them.

And this doesn't even begin to consider those people who take part in the disciplinary counsel who also have a right to confidentiality and who would have no control over either of the recordings being taken, when they might be used, or how they might be revealed.

That's a lot of assumption of risk for the church for very little reward.

As an attorney and from a legal prospective, the Church would be absolutely insane to ever record or allow others to record these meetings. Opening itself up to a lot of liability.

[consiglieri]

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The problem with that is that the church would have to also record the proceedings (otherwise, there would be no protection from someone playing fast and loose if that person was the only one who had a copy of what actually happened).

Then the church would have to keep these recordings indefinitely (because they would never know when it might be needed), passing them on to bishop after bishop or storing them somewhere secure.  The church would likely be held responsible for keeping these recordings confidential in case the other person never disclosed their's and that would become difficult to guarantee after a period of time and depending on how many people had access to them.

And this doesn't even begin to consider those people who take part in the disciplinary counsel who also have a right to confidentiality and who would have no control over either of the recordings being taken, when they might be used, or how they might be revealed.

That's a lot of assumption of risk for the church for very little reward.

In a digital age, there should be no problem with keeping and maintaining such records.

We have a huge hole in a mountain devoted to storing a lot of records, if I recall. 

One thing you say confuses me, though.

 

You say, "And this doesn't even begin to consider those people who take part in the disciplinary counsel who also have a right to confidentiality."

I don't know who that would be.

In my opinion, the only person with a "right to confidentiality" in the council is the person being disciplined.

Nobody else who participates has any "right to confidentiality."

In fact, making a record of the proceedings would tend to curb unwarranted excesses from any such others.

 

[Wiki Wonka]

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You got me wondering how common disciplinary councils are.  I had imagined them to be very rare, but thinking on it maybe they are more common than I thought.  On average, would someone say, how often do they conduct disciplinary councils?  Anyone know or anyone with experience care to share?

I've been on the High Council for about two and a half years. During that time I've seen three disciplinary councils, and one of the three was actually a restoration to full fellowship.