WHY is Jeremy Runnels Facing Church Discipline?

[smac97]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

I think you lost track about what this discussion was about.  The question came up that if the person who was being disciplined could record the council.  

It's a Church meeting, so the Church gets to determine the parameters of the meeting.  I think the Church has an obligation to be reasonable in those parameters, and it is reasonable.  

Quote

I agree that probably most would not want it to be recorded.  But what if someone asked to record the proceedings, should the church be able to accomodate that request.

IMO, It's not a matter of what the Church is "able" to do.  The Brethren have, I believe, promulgated policies on these matters.  Those policies are reasonable.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

Thought better of it

Edited February 13, 2016 by Calm

[Mystery Meat]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

I am not sure I buy all of your objections, but I can see how safeguarding a recording from being released accidentally could be problematic.  

I get a sense from what I read in these past couple of days is that Runnels is asking some pretty difficult questions about what is taught by the church.  I am guessing that he feels just asking hard questions should not be grounds for excommunication.  If a high councilman accused him of leading people away from the church without offering any proof, then I can see why  he would want their answers on record.  Let's speculate and say he gets excommunicated simply for his CES letter and the council has no evidence that he activally tried to do anything more than ask the questions, should he have a right to presenting the lack of any other proof to his followers?  

I personally know nothing about Runnels and his activities.  I personally think the church can excommunicate any person they want for any reason they want.  But if the grounds for excommunication is solely for asking hard questions, then the church should state that as the reason for the action and stand behind it.  

PS.  You need to quit calling people stupid.  This is a fourm that asks questions and receives answers.  You don't need to insult people to present your answers.  I will read what you say without the insults.

I never called you stupid. i just said your post was stupid, which it was.

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, ksfisher said:

No, defiantly not.  As has been mentioned before there exists the possibility of digital manipulation of the recording.  I could imagine a scenario where a very different version of the recording is released to the public.

And in the end no recording can in any way duplicate the spirit that is at the council.  Nothing can record what the stake presidency feels as they kneel and pray together.  And that is what is really important, it's understanding what the Lord's will is concerning the sinner.  How do you record that?

I still cannot figure out why anyone would need a recording. Is the excommunicant going to study it to realize what they did wrong or right? Does the Priesthood leader have time to watch and review them?

The only reason people want to record them is to publicize them. They have watched too many courtroom dramas and want to live one out in the High Council Room and then share it with the world. Instead they should hire some actors and stage a fake disciplinary council where they heroically defy the Stake President and confound him with their questions. Then they could live out their dream and share it with the world.

[consiglieri]

14 hours ago, ttribe said:

Nice low blow.  I can't imagine you would take too kindly to someone publicly deriding your professional skill as a journalist in this forum.

Scott's a journalist?

I thought he was a propagandist.

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Scott's a journalist?

I thought he was a propagandist.

A bummer being on "limited," eh consig? You have a finite number of posts that are allotted you each day, so when you waste them on meaningless drive-by sniping such as this, you end up not having any posts left when you want to say something worthwhile.

Such are the consequences of not being willing to play nice with others.

Edited February 13, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

It's a Church meeting, so the Church gets to determine the parameters of the meeting.  I think the Church has an obligation to be reasonable in those parameters, and it is reasonable.  

IMO, It's not a matter of what the Church is "able" to do.  The Brethren have, I believe, promulgated policies on these matters.  Those policies are reasonable.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yeah I can understand that. It is the churches meeting. They are under no obligation to accommodate the person they are excommunicating. 

[california boy]

7 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

I never called you stupid. i just said your post was stupid, which it was.

Yeah ok. I guess calling people's posts stupid is ok...  The nerve of me to try and understand the situation better.  Sorry. 

[ALarson]

35 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Scott's a journalist?

I thought he was a propagandist.

Can't someone be both?  

[Senator]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

A bummer being on "limited," eh consig? You have a finite number of posts that are allotted you each day, so when you waste them on meaningless drive-by sniping such as this, you end up not having any posts left when you want to say something worthwhile.

Such are the consequences of not being willing to play nice with others.

Then I should be expecting your call for your buddy Mcgreggor's limited status soon?

Yeah, right..

 

[consiglieri]

18 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

Any lawyer worth his salt would discourage the church from allowing or recording any of these councils for privacy reasons alone. But there are lots of other reasons why it won't and shouldn't ever happen.

Any lawyer representing the LDS Church would agree with you.

That is because such lawyers are retained by the LDS Church to protect it against legal liability.

I am concerned with the interests of the person who is summoned to the disciplinary hearing.

Those who sit in judgment have no right of privacy in such hearings.

LDS disciplinary councils are described in scripture as having six members assigned by lot to represent the accused.

The other six are assigned to represent the Church.

This is a fairer system.

Unfortunately, the LDS Church has seen fit to subvert the scriptural process and instead now has nobody to represent the accused.

Those who sit in judgment in such hearings are vested with great authority--they are judge, jury and executioner.

In addition, they are prosecutors/police officers who are permitted to interrogate the accused.

Again, nobody is allowed in the council to represent the interests of the accused.

The cheese stands alone.

This situation is rife with opportunities for abuse.

This is why those who sit in judgment have no right to privacy for how they act in such councils.  This is to be distinguished from their deliberations after the council, which are confidential and private, just as a jury's deliberations are.

Granting the right to privacy to everybody in the council creates the LDS equivalent of the Star Chamber.  Nobody there is accountable for how they behave or how they conduct the proceedings.

It may well be that such lack of accountability is largely responsible for the manner in which disciplinary councils have drifted so far from their scriptural underpinnings.

The reason that disciplinary councils are confidential is to protect the privacy of the accused.  It was never to protect the privacy of those who are sitting in judgment on the accused.

Wherever there's a cop beating up a guy, I'll be there.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

16 hours ago, ttribe said:

Nice low blow.  I can't imagine you would take too kindly to someone publicly deriding your professional skill as a journalist in this forum.

I might not like it much, but if I had it coming, I couldn't very well object, could I. 

And what did I say essentially? That given what I see here, between the two of them, Mystery Meat strikes me as the better attorney. If that strikes you as a "low blow," you must have a real problem with Consumer Reports. 

[ksfisher]

53 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Any lawyer representing the LDS Church would agree with you.

That is because such lawyers are retained by the LDS Church to protect it against legal liability.

I am concerned with the interests of the person who is summoned to the disciplinary hearing.

Those who sit in judgment have no right of privacy in such hearings.

LDS disciplinary councils are described in scripture as having six members assigned by lot to represent the accused.

The other six are assigned to represent the Church.

This is a fairer system.

Unfortunately, the LDS Church has seen fit to subvert the scriptural process and instead now has nobody to represent the accused.

Those who sit in judgment in such hearings are vested with great authority--they are judge, jury and executioner.

In addition, they are prosecutors/police officers who are permitted to interrogate the accused.

Again, nobody is allowed in the council to represent the interests of the accused.

The cheese stands alone.

This situation is rife with opportunities for abuse.

This is why those who sit in judgment have no right to privacy for how they act in such councils.  This is to be distinguished from their deliberations after the council, which are confidential and private, just as a jury's deliberations are.

Granting the right to privacy to everybody in the council creates the LDS equivalent of the Star Chamber.  Nobody there is accountable for how they behave or how they conduct the proceedings.

It may well be that such lack of accountability is largely responsible for the manner in which disciplinary councils have drifted so far from their scriptural underpinnings.

The reason that disciplinary councils are confidential is to protect the privacy of the accused.  It was never to protect the privacy of those who are sitting in judgment on the accused.

Wherever there's a cop beating up a guy, I'll be there.

 

You are completely wrong throuout this entire post.

Councils are conducted in the manner outlined in the Doctrine and Covenants.

While six are chosen to represent the church and six the accused, all, and I repeat ALL, desire that the sinner repent and return to Christ.

The desire of the council is for the Lord to manifest, through the spirit, the right path for the repentant sinner to return to keeping his or her covenants with God.

Councils are conducted in an atmosphere of love, where the spirit of the Lord pervades and is recognizable to all who desire it.

All who participate in such councils are accountable to God and take that accountability seriously.

Your post is insulting to all who have ever participated in such councils in any capacity.

[Scott Lloyd]

46 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

 

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Yeah I can understand that. It is the churches meeting. They are under no obligation to accommodate the person they are excommunicating. 

Membership in the Church is a privilege, not a right. 

The Church is thus not a governmental entity granting so-called "rights." Rather, it is a party to a contract in which each party may terminate the contract at any time if it sees that the other party is not living up to the contractual terms. 

A disciplinary council may be thought of as a formal airing of grievances pursuant to possible limitation to or termination of the contract on the part of the Church. It justly allows a hearing and mercifully makes clear to the errant member how he can change his behavior and again be deemed to be in compliance. 

[ttribe]

57 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I might not like it much, but if I had it coming, I couldn't very well object, could I. 

And what did I say essentially? That given what I see here, between the two of them, Mystery Meat strikes me as the better attorney. If that strikes you as a "low blow," you must have a real problem with Consumer Reports. 

Whatever you say, Scott.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Senator said:

Then I should be expecting your call for your buddy Mcgreggor's limited status soon?

Yeah, right..

 

I can see where you might not like some of what Russell says, but he does not engage in substance-void, drive-by sniping. 

[ttribe]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I can see where you might not like some of what Russell says, but he does not engage in substance-void, drive-by sniping. 

 

That was a GOOD one, Scott!

[consiglieri]

31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I can see where you might not like some of what Russell says, but he does not engage in substance-void, drive-by sniping. 

Substance-void, drive-by sniping from Russell in the last month alone:

 

Quote

You were complaining that the list of sins requiring annotations wasn't long enough.  I was wondering whether you were feeling left out.

 

 

 

 

 

Quote

There's something charming about ostentatiously announcing that you're not going to engage with me -- but only after scolding me, in detail, for my awfulness. Only  a woman could pull that off. 

 

 

 
 

Quote

A fine unscrupulous lawyer trick: try to deflect attention from your own bad faith by going on the attack.

 

And you do it with such practiced skill.

 

 

 

 

Quote

Well, as an avowed apostate, you clearly don't think God has any part in anything the Church does, do you?

 

Quote

Why need she fear any "bully" when she's got big, brave (and anonymous) Teancum standing up for her?  

 

Quote

So the Matriarchy silence (or muzzle) the men -- and then insist that it's the men's fault. Got it.  

 

  

Quote

 

Falsely accusing the Church of pointing the finger of accusation is offensive. And detestable. And in character.

 

 

Quote

You are rude. Do you have evidence to the contrary, or are you just being a jerk?

 

Quote

My friends call me Russell. Petty cheap-shot merchants who have not the courtesy to introduce themselves can call me Mr McGregor

 

Quote

It's scriptural language. Perhaps you're unaware of that.  

 

Quote

I'd really like to think that you occasionally want to have a serious discussion about a serious subject; but in order for me to believe that, you'd have to just occasionally pass up the opportunity to take a gratuitous swipe at believing Latter-day Saints. Whom you so obviously and deeply despise.

 
 

Quote

 

Why do you make that assertion, when you know it to be false? Or does the question answer itself?

 

 

Quote

 

Or maybe he'd just switch tactics into yammering on about that instead.

 

 

Quote

Actually he's talking the most hostile spin possible. As is his wont.  

 

Quote

The deceitful proselytizing tactics of unprincipled apostates appear to be aimed at bringing about such a loss of confidence. Fortunately, such tactics will not succeed.

 

Quote

If you had an attention span, you'd know the answer to that. But since you don't, I'll tell you: I'd prefer we listen to the Still Small Voice.

 

Quote

So you're glad the Lord finally became as wise and enlightened as you, huh?

 

[Senator]

51 minutes ago, ttribe said:

 

That was a GOOD one, Scott!

Absolutely!

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Substance-void, drive-by sniping from Russell in the last month alone:

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Looks like I've missed some good stuff. I'll have to go back and check it out. Thanks for the tip. 

My observation about Russell over the years is that he gives as good as he gets. I know that antagonists, hostile critics and militant apostates aren't used to such treatment, but it's hard to feel sympathy for them. 

By the way, this thread is getting derailed. In the interest of getting back on track, I'm going to try hard to ignore the nasty rejoinder that you inevitably have in store for me. That probably means I'm going to have to bow out of this thread and not even read anything else here.  

Edited February 13, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[consiglieri]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Looks like I've missed some good stuff. I'll have to go back and check it out. Thanks for the tip. 

Looks like you're a propagandist for more than just the LDS Church.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

56 minutes ago, ttribe said:

 

That was a GOOD one, Scott!

So do you plan to reproach consig next time he makes one of his drive-by jabs?  

He has a habit of that, you know. That's what got him put on "limited."

[consiglieri]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So do you plan to reproach consig next time he makes one of his drive-by jabs?  

He has a habit of that, you know. That's what got him put on "limited."

That's not the issue, Scott, and you know it.

You said this:

Quote

I can see where you might not like some of what Russell says, but he does not engage in substance-void, drive-by sniping. 

I provided numerous examples showing you are wrong.

Now you want to change the subject.

This is why it's hard to take you seriously.

You have no journalistic integrity.

Okay, thats enough. I'm late to the party but you are out of the thread.

[Senator]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So do you plan to reproach consig next time he makes one of his drive-by jabs?  

He has a habit of that, you know. That's what got him put on "limited."

Tell you what, I will reproach consig the next time he makes a personally demeaning jab towards another poster on this forum.

Deal.

Shall we keep a tally?

Edited February 13, 2016 by Senator

[Senator]

10 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

That's not the issue, Scott, and you know it.

You said this:

I provided numerous examples showing you are wrong.

Now you want to change the subject.

This is why it's hard to take you seriously.

You have no journalistic integrity.

Well, that was quick.

Just when I was going to defend you that you don't make personal, demeaning comments to other posters.