WHY is Jeremy Runnels Facing Church Discipline?

[halconero]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I haven't followed Runnels that closely, but I think both have been pretty open about where they stand, belief-wise 

Yes and no. How they couch their beliefs and why they share what they do changes from their personal websites to their commentaries on forum. The content of their commentary might be somewhat similar (and from anecdotal experience the word "loosely" applies here) but their motivations, digging and attitude of respect shifts.

It would be as if Valentinus, 3DOP or FiveSolas respectfully suggested we visit their (non-existent) blogs which raise valid questions regarding doubts non-Mormons/exmormons have with the purpose of aiding us, helping us, and enabling us to choose for ourselves, and then going over to CARM/r/exmormon/some-other-forum and mocking believers, deriding those who doubt or know the doubts yet remain faithful, or digging for any piece of gossip or personal info about members of this board.

[smac97]

 

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I read that a CES director asked Runnells for a letter outlining all his questions, I'll bet he regrets that to the max.  

I'm not sure about that.  I suspect such a request from the CES director would have been made in a good faith effort to understand and respond to Bro. Runnell's concerns.  Bro. Runnells simply did not reciprocate that good faith.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Johnnie Cake]

Take it for what it's worth:

On another board I sometimes visit, a poster claiming to be the son of a Stake President has made the following post of his SP fathers observations regarding Runnels court, if true seems that the Brehtern have had enough and are directing SP to rid the church of anyone they view as apostate bloggers. Prepare for the purge... 

Quote

As most of you know (I've stated it many times before) my father is a Stake President who is close to several GA's and a couple members of the 12. He called me tonight to tell me something good about my brother (unrelated topic) and so I asked him his take on why only now are they holding a disciplinary hearing on Jeremy Runnels.

His take - (And I will caveat that it's his take, but he is in the know) the Q12 are taking a hard line now on apostates and have instructed SP's that if there are people posting negative things about the church, blogging, etc they should be treated as apostates and excommunicated. Apparently one of the GA's brought up that the CES letter has caused wide spread "damage" to the church yet the author has remained a member.

He couldn't absolutely link the two together, but said they had to be related. Now, if you know my dad, he isn't a gossiper and he is pretty level headed and actually thinks the church is really hurting themselves the way they have labeled apostates and gays. He will not hold a church court on someone unless they are actively trying to pull people away, and then only when he is pressed by the area president.

His take. Jeremy has NO chance of not being ex'd and the decision has already been made, same as Kate Kelly and John Delin.

For what it's worth. It's a very credible source to me.

 

[smac97]

Quote

Now, if you know my dad, he isn't a gossiper...

Unlike her dad's daughter, who apparently is a gossiper...

Meanwhile, what is the CES letter except someone "actively trying to pull people away?"  Of course that's its purpose.  

Thanks,

-Smac

EDIT TO ADD: Your source is an anonymous post by "hotexmogirl" on the "Ex-Mormon" portion of Reddit, right?  Elsewhere in the thread she states: "I love sitting back and watching the church implode."  She also presents this stuff as her father's "take" (based on him presumably being "in the know" because he "is close to several GA's and a couple members of the 12").  

What you are presenting is

A) double hearsay ("hotexmogirl" conveying her father's "take" on instructions from General Authorities to other stake presidents)

B) speculation (her father's "take" based on him presumably being "in the know" because he "is close to several GA's and a couple members of the 12")

C) from a completely anonymous online source ("hotexmogirl")

D) who is demonstrably hostile to the LDS Church ("I love sitting back and watching the church implode", plus she's posting this on a hostile message board to like minded people)

E) and who feels it necessary, even in an environment so conducive to her hostility to the LDS Church, to bolster her claims with other unverifiable claims (essentially she's saying "trust me because my dad's totally tight with several GA's and a couple members of the 12", and she also characterizes her anonymous post as "inside information" about Jeremy Runnells disciplinary council).

Not exactly the most credible source in the world.  And here I thought it was the Mormons who were supposed to be credulous...

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 10, 2016 by smac97

[Mystery Meat]

12 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Take it for what it's worth:

On another board I sometimes visit, a poster claiming to be the son of a Stake President has made the following post of his SP fathers observations regarding Runnels court, if true seems that the Brehtern have had enough and are directing SP to rid the church of anyone they view as apostate bloggers. Prepare for the purge... 

 

The way that poster describes his father, could have almost been word for word me describing my father (at least the first sentence). Despite how close he is to multiple GAs and members of the 12, they tell him absolutely nothing. I have a hard time believing this poster's father knows anything more on this particular issue than the average member.

[Tacenda]

24 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Getting exommunicated must be nice.  You get all sorts of attention.  Candlelight vigils.  You host your own press conference.  People buy you free stuff -- like laptops.  You start your own Church.  And uninformed outsiders treat you like an expert.

I'm logging on to facebook right now to spread rumors that my SP has dementia.

 

How is spreading rumors about a falsehood the same?  Anyway, I guess they are holding a vigil because it's the death of his membership.  But honestly, they might be a tad disingenuous, I'm not sure if they really care that he isn't going to be member anymore.  Of course, some do hold out for a church that is better in it's treatment of it's members like gays etc.  But if they're being honest, they really don't act like they care too much for sticking around.  I see why they like to go public such as holding press conferences.  They hold a secret desire for their friends and family to see why they have questions and doubts.  They really just long to be accepted into the family as a normal human being again.  I see the underlining reasons, but think it's pretty silly, but see why they do it.  

I think it was kind of crazy for it to be on Valentine's Day also, why that day?  I think it was just overlooked possibly?  

[Rain]

44 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It does make you wonder what the person was thinking that scheduled it for that day.  Even though it's a Sunday, it's still Valentine's day-a day when women usually want their hubbies home.

True. Even though it wouldn't be any different to me than any other Sunday I wouldn't schedule it that day without reason. So either someone isn't thinking or there is a reason that we don't know about. Could go either way.

[ALarson]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

I'm not sure about that.  I suspect such a request from the CES director would have been made in a good faith effort to understand and respond to Bro. Runnell's concerns.  Bro. Runnells simply did not reciprocate that good faith.

I read why the letter was originally written and I do believe it was in good faith.  Runnells was reaching out for help in the beginning and the CES director believed he had the answers to his questions and requested that he write them down and send them to him.  What it grew into from then, is up for discussion though and I think a lot has transpired since then from both sides.

I have honestly wondered why this court didn't happen before now. 

[Johnnie Cake]

13 minutes ago, Rain said:

True. Even though it wouldn't be any different to me than any other Sunday I wouldn't schedule it that day without reason. So either someone isn't thinking or there is a reason that we don't know about. Could go either way.

It is a court of LOVE Right?  Seems completely appropriate to hold it on THE day of LOVE...

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I read why the letter was originally written and I do believe it was in good faith.  Runnells was reaching out for help in the beginning and the CES director believed he had the answers to his questions and requested that he write them down and send them to him.  

Which request was in good faith.  But then publishing the letter requested by the CES Director, in a concerted effort to tear down the faith of the Saints, was not in good faith.  That was my point.

Quote

What it grew into from then, is up for discussion though and I think a lot has transpired since then from both sides.

"From both sides?"

Quote

I have honestly wondered why this court didn't happen before now. 

Dunno.  Not much value in speculating about such things, IMO.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 10, 2016 by smac97

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Rain said:

True. Even though it wouldn't be any different to me than any other Sunday I wouldn't schedule it that day without reason. So either someone isn't thinking or there is a reason that we don't know about. Could go either way.

Could very well have been an issue of just not another good time to schedule it. Though I also wouldn't be surprised if it was just a lapse in judgement. Could have been a husband who's wife truly doesn't care so it didn't occur to him to think anyone else would either

It's not that big of a deal, just seemed like a weird night to schedule a husband for a church meeting. 

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Which request was in good faith.  But then publishing the letter requested by the CES Director, in a concerted effort to tear down the faith of the Saints, was not in good faith.  That was my point.

The letter was written in good faith and asking for help and answers (that's why the CES Director asked him to write the letter).  I agree that publishing it is questionable and I don't know enough about that.  How much time went by between Runnells asking for help and him actually making the letter he wrote public, do you know?

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"From both sides?"

Yes.  There are so many rebuttals and responses and "debunkings" between Runnells and FAIR that I lost count and stopped reading.  That's what I was referring to.  

[rongo]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

And a Sunday...

Sundays are typically good days for disciplinary councils. Much better for the bishoprics/stake presidencies/high councils from a family time perspective, since it doesn't cause one more day of being away during the week (i.e., Sundays are pretty much shot with meetings, anyway, so why not do it then and limit being away from the family during the week?). More important: our primary consideration is the person's schedule, and minimizing embarrassment from other people being in the building, and Sunday nights are good for that. Our stake presidency/high council almost always holds stake-level ones (which this Runnells one is) on Sunday mornings, early.

As far as Valentine's day, my wife and I are among those for whom "every day is Valentine's day."   Seriously, it really is just another day for us, and we don't subscribe to the commercialism and silliness of overpriced chocolate and flowers. But, there are enough members who do (like with the Superbowl), and I personally wouldn't schedule anything on that day for their sakes. It looks to me like this is an attempt to hold it as quickly as possible to minimize the publicity value for Runnells and fellow travelers who hate the Church (i.e., hold it quickly with a minimum of time between the summons and the council).

[volgadon]

It is a little silly to describe Runnels as having questions and doubts regarding the church. He absolutely does not. Runnels is very dogmatic in his new beliefs regarding the church.

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

Sundays are typically good days for disciplinary councils. Much better for the bishoprics/stake presidencies/high councils from a family time perspective, since it doesn't cause one more day of being away during the week (i.e., Sundays are pretty much shot with meetings, anyway, so why not do it then and limit being away from the family during the week?). More important: our primary consideration is the person's schedule, and minimizing embarrassment from other people being in the building, and Sunday nights are good for that. Our stake presidency/high council almost always holds stake-level ones (which this Runnells one is) on Sunday mornings, early.

As far as Valentine's day, my wife and I are among those for whom "every day is Valentine's day."   Seriously, it really is just another day for us, and we don't subscribe to the commercialism and silliness of overpriced chocolate and flowers. But, there are enough members who do (like with the Superbowl), and I personally wouldn't schedule anything on that day for their sakes. It looks to me like this is an attempt to hold it as quickly as possible to minimize the publicity value for Runnells and fellow travelers who hate the Church (i.e., hold it quickly with a minimum of time between the summons and the council).

This sounds about right.  I will only add that celebrating Valentine's Day is pretty much not on the Church's radar.  The Church only pays formal attention to Christmas and Mother's Day, and some attention at the local level in the U.S. is paid to Thanksgiving (lessons/talks/hymns about gratitude) and the Fourth of July (lessons/talks/hymns about freedom).  

Father's Day, Memorial Day, Valentine's Day, Halloween, Labor Day, New Year's Eve . . . these just don't get much attention from the Church, at either the general/regional or local levels.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, volgadon said:

It is a little silly to describe Runnels as having questions and doubts regarding the church. He absolutely does not. Runnels is very dogmatic in his new beliefs regarding the church.

It started with him having questions and doubts.  He was looking for help and answers, that's why the CES Director asked him to write his questions and issues down as he wanted to help Runnells.

What it's evolved into, is now quite different and I agree that Runnells has not been quiet regarding his new beliefs.

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

It started with him having questions and doubts.  He was looking for help and answers, that's why the CES Director asked him to write his questions and issues down as he wanted to help Runnells.

What it's evolved into, is now quite different and I agree that Runnells has not been quiet regarding his new beliefs.

Runnells is being marketed as initially being a  "humble questioner," but the sheer volume of material in his "letter," and the tone of it (the letter itself, not the aftermath, which everyone agrees is anti-Mormon) show that this was a setup/ambush scenario from the beginning, and not just "questions." Runnells had already made up his mind (with voluminous documentation).

Does anyone know the time frame between the writing/sending of the letter and his publication of it (internet/social media)? 

[ALarson]

From searching to find an answer to my earlier question regarding the time between Runnells writing the letter to the CES Director and when he went public with the letter, I did find this:

Quote

In February 2012, Jeremy Runnels experienced a crisis of faith, which subsequently led to a faith transition in the summer of 2012. In the spring of 2013, Jeremy was approached and asked by a Church Education System (CES) Director to share his concerns and questions about the LDS Church’s origins, history, and current practices. In response, Jeremy wrote what later became publicly known as Letter to a CES Director.

Letter to a CES Director very quickly went viral on the internet. The CES Director responded that he read the “very well written” letter and that he would provide Jeremy with a response. No response ever came.

In the fall of 2013, FairMormon, an unofficial LDS apologetic group, publicly released an analysis of Letter to a CES Director. In response, Jeremy published Debunking FAIR’s Debunking.

So, sometime between February 2012 and the fall of 2013 was when he published the letter, I'm assuming?  Does anyone know the date?  I was just curious how long Runnells waited for a reply before he went public.

This is also interesting (from his website):

 CES Letter has been downloaded an estimated 600,000 times to date, and over 12,000 LDS Church members have reached out to Runnells after reading the CES Letter. 

 

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Unlike her dad's daughter, who apparently is a gossiper...

Meanwhile, what is the CES letter except someone "actively trying to pull people away?"  Of course that's its purpose.  

Thanks,

-Smac

EDIT TO ADD: Your source is an anonymous post by "hotexmogirl" on the "Ex-Mormon" portion of Reddit, right?  Elsewhere in the thread she states: "I love sitting back and watching the church implode."  She also presents this stuff as her father's "take" (based on him presumably being "in the know" because he "is close to several GA's and a couple members of the 12").  

What you are presenting is

A) double hearsay ("hotexmogirl" conveying her father's "take" on instructions from General Authorities to other stake presidents)

B) speculation (her father's "take" based on him presumably being "in the know" because he "is close to several GA's and a couple members of the 12")

C) from a completely anonymous online source ("hotexmogirl")

D) who is demonstrably hostile to the LDS Church ("I love sitting back and watching the church implode", plus she's posting this on a hostile message board to like minded people)

E) and who feels it necessary, even in an environment so conducive to her hostility to the LDS Church, to bolster her claims with other unverifiable claims (essentially she's saying "trust me because my dad's totally tight with several GA's and a couple members of the 12", and she also characterizes her anonymous post as "inside information" about Jeremy Runnells disciplinary council).

Not exactly the most credible source in the world.  And here I thought it was the Mormons who were supposed to be credulous...

Thanks,

-Smac

As stated in my post...Take it for what its worth

[Gray]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Take it for what it's worth:

On another board I sometimes visit, a poster claiming to be the son of a Stake President has made the following post of his SP fathers observations regarding Runnels court, if true seems that the Brehtern have had enough and are directing SP to rid the church of anyone they view as apostate bloggers. Prepare for the purge... 

 

My only question is, what took them so long? 

I disagreed with the excommunication of Dehlin and Kelly, but Runnels is very clearly "out" and antagonistic in a way that neither of them were. 

Edited February 10, 2016 by Gray

[smac97]

Just now, Johnnie Cake said:

As stated in my post...Take it for what its worth

As indicated in my post ... it's worth virtually nothing.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

Runnells is being marketed as initially being a  "humble questioner," but the sheer volume of material in his "letter," and the tone of it (the letter itself, not the aftermath, which everyone agrees is anti-Mormon) show that this was a setup/ambush scenario from the beginning, and not just "questions." Runnells had already made up his mind (with voluminous documentation).

Does anyone know the time frame between the writing/sending of the letter and his publication of it (internet/social media)? 

I asked that same question (and found the information above, but someone may have more specifics).

As far as his initial letter, I do see it as a sincere response to the request from the CES Director.  I agree that the tone in his follow up responses to FAIR was quite different from his initial letter (from what I read, as I stopped reading the responses from both sides after awhile).

.

Edited February 10, 2016 by ALarson

[Johnnie Cake]

Is it fair for the church to claim that church disciplinary councils are local matters when it appears that some of these higher profile courts have been orchestrated from above?  If GA's are somehow providing the motivations for these SP's to move forward with courts...this claims seem pretty disingenuous.  The truth however is that we will never know the truth behind the motivation unless these courts become more widespread.  Currently, I am only personally familiar with 4 recent church courts...2 of which resulted in excommunication for apostasy due to FB postings and blogging, Runnels would make 5

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As indicated in my post ... it's worth virtually nothing.  

Thanks,

-Smac

It's worth about as much as anyone's hearsay or posts on here (reporting something they've experienced or heard).  It's interesting, but that's about it.

[Johnnie Cake]

13 minutes ago, Gray said:

My only question is, what took them so long? 

I disagreed with the excommunication of Dehlin and Kelly, but Runnels is very clearly "out" in a way that neither of them were. 

I don't know Runnels...but I sympathize with him.   No one wants to be rejected by their tribe.  But on the other hand I firmly believe that the church has the right to police its boundaries and say who can and can't be a member of the church.  Like you I believe their patience has been tested to a breaking point...