WHY is Jeremy Runnels Facing Church Discipline?

[JLHPROF]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That's what I thought as well.  The problem is that I have never seen anything other than hearsay, gossip, speculation, innuendo, etc. to support the claim that General Authorities are involving themselves in some disciplinary councils.

And more to the point, I'm not sure General Authorities are involving themselves in some disciplinary councils is inappropriate.  And yet critics of the Church are seizing on such things to criticize the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

To be clear, the General Authorities don't have to involve themselves directly in disciplinary councils to "orchestrate from above".
All they have to do is send out a policy giving the local councils little option in their conclusions.

IE - They don't tell a council to excommunicate KK, but they send out instructions to excommunicate anyone who protests publicly, thus assuring KK is excommunicated.

The questionable post reference states the assumption that GA's  "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".
If that is a regulation of Church policy now, then whether someone like Runnels being excommunicated is "directly orchestrated" is really no more than semantics.
If his action is defined as apostasy, and the Church requires excommunication for such apostasy, they don't need to direct the council to do anything to him specifically - the application of regulation will take care of it.

If the GA's wanted to have me excommunicated all they would have to do is send a memo to Stake Presidents directing that anyone who does something I am doing should be excommunicated.  It doesn't have to involve me by name to be orchestrated from above.
And I don't see why this is considered wrong on the part of the GA's.  Don't they get to set the standard for disciplinary actions?

[Johnnie Cake]

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Just exposing things that make people question the church I guess?  I don't know why exactly.  For all intents and purposes, does FAIR also expose things that make members go...what!?!?

I think it's just a big can of worms, and the fork in the road members have to decide on, whether to keep the faith despite the true history of the church that has become more available with the internet, or walk.  But this is probably not a lot of members issues now, with the new policy, church getting in the way of bills etc.    

The church is making a mistake possibly, exposing members to the CES letter.  But maybe this is the way the church is creating a weeding out process, or refiner's fire for the member to process.  

 

 

Good point....when I had my faith crisis...it was FAIR that confirmed my worst fears and then took those fears to a whole new level of cognitive dissonance I didn't know existed...thanks FAIR

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Does it really just come down to him talking publically about things the church would prefer not have made so public?

No.  It really just comes down to him rebelling against organizational rules and authority.
And the result of that in pretty much any organization is expulsion.

You may not agree with the Church policies, but they have the right to set their own and withhold membership from those who refuse to follow.

Basically, your club, your rules, their club, their rules.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, volgadon said:

As far as I can tell, the letter was written after Runnels had made up his mind, not while he was looking for help and answers. The questions in the letter are meant as unanswerable gotchas.

Well, we can only go on what was stated regarding why the letter was written.  We don't know who the CES Director was nor do we have any statements from him (as far as I know?).  

[Kevin Christensen]

I've also read the CES Letter, carefully enough to write this:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/eye-of-the-beholder-law-of-the-harvest-observations-on-the-inevitable-consequences-of-the-different-investigative-approaches-of-jeremy-runnells-and-jeff-lindsay/

And this:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/image-is-everything-pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain/

Shooting the messenger would be actually be the death penalty.   No one has actually shot Runnells.  And while Runnells did not like what I wrote, he did not actually shoot me in publishing a response by one of his friends. And LDS discipline is nothing like the death penalty, nor is it even damnation.  It is simply recognizing that he publicly and loudly and often rejected the fundamental teaching that goes with membership in the LDS community.  And he has asked to be funded for doing so, while claiming that apologists are corrupted by financial incentives, even when we don't have any.  And he can continue to do so if indeed he is excommunicated.  And, if he ever decides to repent, he can return to the LDS community, though of course, that action would cause some tension among his current followers, would it not?

A few years back, I posted a few well documented comments on Dehlin's Mormon Stories interview with Coe.  I found that I was not welcome in that community, and Dehlin later deleted most of my comments.  Stuff, it happens, that tended to discredit both Dehlin and Coe.  I exposed some things he would prefer not to be exposed, important gaps in his knowledge. I was, in a sense, excommunicated from that society, my voice silenced as unwelcome.

Sincerity is not the only thing that matters.  After all, when Othello strangled Desdemona, he sincerely thought she had betrayed his trust.   Does sincerity exonerate him?   After all, he wasn't telling lies, just, relying on poor information and premature judgment.

And its not just a matter of asking questions.  It's where you go for answers, and what you do with your subsequent conclusions relative to the societies around you.  My essays ask a number of questions toward Runnells and his defenders which generated heat  in those circles. They haven't exactly been sending donations and bouquets my way, inviting me into the circle of their love.  (Not that I'm asking.)

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited February 10, 2016 by Kevin Christensen

[Tacenda]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Runnells' spin is to make the information he shares make the Church and those he is attacking in it look bad.  It is not just the information he is sharing, but how he goes about it.

And he is doing this as his full time job, living off of donations, benefitting from others' loss of faith.

Yes, I don't have much respect for that.  

[Calm]

Quote

That's probably what has done the most damage here is that all of the issues were compiled into one letter and when members read it, it is very overwhelming which causes them to do their own searching and research on these topics.

Given the tone and spin he puts on it, yes, this is definitely why the damage occurs.  I have seen discussions with people who are satisfied when you speak with them about one issue at a time, but they just keep going back to "but then there is this".  So even though they are comfortable with the answers that they get, instead of translating that realization into being willing to withhold full doubt until all the issues have been addressed, they get stuck in 'there is just so much there, it has to mean that the Church is false'.  Most haven't done independent research or from what I can tell, even read the whole CES letter.  It is more that it even exists that strikes at their faith.

Now I don't know if in these cases they had doubts to begin with and then found the letter which solidified those doubts or the letter itself caused the doubts (if the latter, I would say what I have heard leads me to believe that it is more how it has been used by someone they care about to support that person's doubts and they trust that person so they begin to doubt then what the letter says itself that begins the doubting process).

[HappyJackWagon]

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

First, CFR that "these higher profile courts have been orchestrated from above."  If all you've got is gossip and speculation, then let's get that cleared up now.

Second, I think it is beyond reasonable dispute that church disciplinary councils are, in virtually all circumstances, "local matters."

Third, there appears to be a question as to whether church disciplinary counsels are necessarily and exclusively "local matters."  As to that issue, my understanding is that priesthood keys are delegable. That is, a stake president has all the keys of those within his stewardship (the bishops in his stake, for example), but that the bishop is generally responsible for the utilization of those keys. That does not mean, however, that the higher priesthood office is without authority to use those keys. For example, if excommunication of a Melchizedek priesthood member is possible, then a disciplinary matter will be transferred to the stake president for adjudication.

In other words, priesthood keys pertaining to disciplinary matters appear to be held concurrently in the priesthood line of authority, not exclusively by the bishop. If that is the case, then it may well be possible for those keys to be held concurrently by those above a stake president, up to and including general authorities. This would not appear to be a novelty. President Ezra Taft Benson told us that "the prophet can receive revelation on any matter—temporal or spiritual." Is it possible, then, that other general authorities have similar (but not identically plenary) authority? It would seem so, hence their designation as general authorities.

The general policy of the church is to leave disciplinary proceedings in the hands of local leaders. This seems to be what happens most of the time.

However, I am not aware of any doctrine which prohibits general authorities from becoming involved in disciplinary proceedings. See, for example the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article on disciplinary procedures (http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Disciplinary_Procedures) (emphases added):

So I'm not sure GA involvement is a "no no" ("out of the ordinary," yes, but not prohibited by doctrine or policy).  The general policy of the church usually leaves discipline to the local leadership. That is as it should be, I think. But the policy does not appear to be utterly rigid and inviolable. 

Only to folks who are unreasonably hostile to the LDS Church.  I hope that's not you.

"Know the truth?"  How are such matters any of our business?  Are you suggesting that a general authority being involved in a disciplinary action is illegal?  Immoral?  Icky?  What's the problem here?

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree that there is no reason to think that the Q15 or assigned GA's wouldn't have authority to conduct a DC. But "most of the time" isn't what they say. Repeatedly in press releases the church states that DC's are local matters. Why would a case like this where the impact far exceeds a SP's locality not be considered by the Q15? Why must it be local? They only reason we have the expectation that it should be local is because it is repeatedly stated as such.

As far as evidence of top leadership getting involved and directing DC's there are many accounts like the Calderwoods where the SP admitted that he was directed by his leaders to hold a DC. There are accounts of Elder Packer directing DC's for the September 6 and Whitney Clayton being involved with directing John Dehlin's. There are numerous accounts but I'd agree it is unlikely to find any solid evidence of these things since any evidence would be from internal memos. Without hard evidence we are left to consider the trustworthiness of someone like the Calderwoods who make claims that their SP admitted direction from the top. Or maybe the SP was lying? It's impossible to know for sure.

I'm curious, has anyone ever questioned the Q15 to get a direct answer about their involvement or do statements of non-involvement always come from the Newsroom? It would be great to ask them directly. If I was allowed to ask directly I think I'd get an honest answer. The problem is there is no way to ask directly and the church isn't exactly known for its transparency.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Does it really just come down to him talking publically about things the church would prefer not have made so public? 

No.  He is actively trying to get people to leave the Church.

[HappyJackWagon]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

"court of love" is not the appropriate term these days (it is used on lds.org once in a talk title back in 72 and referred to in one article in 82), it is usually used in a derogatory fashion, so better just to call it a disciplinary council:

https://www.lds.org/topics/church-disciplinary-councils?lang=eng

 

I've heard it used numerous times in non-derogatory ways and I wasn't even born in 1972. It's become a joke for a reason. The reason is that DC's are often said to be for the benefit of the individual and an expression of love.

The term "church court" has been discontinued because of its negative connotation but court or council of love is alive and well.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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

The made up insinuations of an apostate shared here by an enemy of the faith for the purpose of sowing doubt.

[Johnnie Cake]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Have you read Jeremy's Press Release?

It's a doozy.  Just check out the first paragraph (emphases added):

And also don't miss the plea further down the page for his "supporters" to "pay it forward" by . . . well, paying him.  Money.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes I've read it...not my style at all and seems full of self aggrandizement, wish he had taken a different tack 

Edited February 10, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Calm]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I've heard it used numerous times in non-derogatory ways and I wasn't even born in 1972.

You and I run in different circles then.

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

Using his own standard of measurement, a 16% accuracy for one of the versions of his letter was determined:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Online_documents/Letter_to_a_CES_Director

Over and above the particular responses to each of Jeremy's "concerns," I think there is an overarching dishonesty in how he utterly disregards and fails to take into account any treatment of these issues by LDS scholars, apologists, etc.  

He presents these "concerns" as if they are his.  They aren't.  He didn't come up with them.  He cribbed them from others (usually hostile to the LDS Church, I suspect).

He presents these "concerns" as if they are newly discovered.  They aren't.  They've been around along time, as have responses to virtually all of them.

Finally, he presents these "concerns" without any attempt to interact or address or even acknowledge the existence of thoughtful and reasoned treatments of them.  In doing so he preys on the ignorance (and, to some extent, the laziness) of others who read his letter and come away with the impression that there are no answers to them.  He destroys faith and testimonies not by reason or persuasion, but by accusations and deception.  Metaphorically speaking, he doesn't slice the jugular of others' testimonies (he apparently lacks the ability to do that - it's not like he's demonstrated any unique insights or intelligence or persuasive evidence/argument in anything that he's done), and instead resorts to inflicting pain by a thousand paper cuts.  It's a manipulative and abusive thing to do.

And worse, he is now doing all of these things to make money for himself.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

14 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Does it really just come down to him talking publically about things the church would prefer not have made so public? 

No, it comes down to being an enemy of the Church and an enemy of God. He can do that all he likes but he cannot do so while remaining a member of said God's kingdom.

Buh-bye

 

[Johnnie Cake]

15 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I've also read the CES Letter, carefully enough to write this:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/eye-of-the-beholder-law-of-the-harvest-observations-on-the-inevitable-consequences-of-the-different-investigative-approaches-of-jeremy-runnells-and-jeff-lindsay/

And this:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/image-is-everything-pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain/

Shooting the messenger would be actually be the death penalty.   No one has actually shot Runnells.  And while Runnells did not like what I wrote, he did not actually shoot me in publishing a response by one of his friends. And LDS discipline is nothing like the death penalty, nor is it even damnation.  It is simply recognizing that he publicly and loudly and often rejected the fundamental teaching that goes with membership in the LDS community.  And he has asked to be funded for doing so, while claiming that apologists are corrupted by financial incentives, even when we don't have any.  And he can continue to do so if indeed he is excommunicated.  And, if he ever decides to repent, he can return to the LDS community, though of course, that action would cause some tension among his current followers, would it not?

A few years back, I posted a few well documented comments on Dehlin's Mormon Stories interview with Coe.  I found that I was not welcome in that community, and Dehlin later deleted most of my comments.  Stuff, it happens, that tended to discredit both Dehlin and Coe.  I exposed some things he would prefer not to be exposed, important gaps in his knowledge. I was, in a sense, excommunicated from that society, my voice silenced as unwelcome.

Sincerity is not the only thing that matters.  After all, when Othello strangled Desdemona, he sincerely thought she had betrayed his trust.   Does sincerity exonerate him?   After during, he wasn't telling lies, just, relying on poor information and premature judgment.

And its not just a matter of asking questions.  It's where you go for answers, and what you do with your subsequent conclusions relative to the societies around you.  My essays ask a number of questions toward Runnells and his defenders which generated heat  in those circles. They haven't exactly been sending donations and bouquets my way, inviting me into the circle of their love.  (Not that I'm asking.)

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Thank you I appreciate this... I for one would be interested in reading your Coe rebuttal...is it available somewhere?

Edited February 10, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, we can only go on what was stated regarding why the letter was written.  We don't know who the CES Director was nor do we have any statements from him (as far as I know?).  

Or we can refer elsewhere to what Runnells had written prior to the CES letter to determine his state of mind then....see the link to his "open letter".  Doesn't seem like a letter from someone looking for answers to me but someone who has made up their mind, you can of course make up your own mind:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Online_documents/Letter_to_a_CES_Director/An_%22open_letter%22_to_Elder_Quentin_L._Cook

Quote

You get the picture. I used to believe a lot of vicious lies, all of which are found in LDS or LDS-friendly sources I read about on the evil internetz. I guess these LDS and LDS-friendly sources are anti-Mormon too. 

But thanks to your talk, I repented. And now I know the truth: official LDS and LDS-friendly sources on the evil internetz tell lots and lots of lies about Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, the First Vision, the Book of Mormon and everything else you can think of about the Lord's church. 

Thanks for encouraging me to repent of my disillusionment and bringing me back to the fold. 

We should ban Rough Stone Rolling, edit Joseph's journals, delete part of the History of the Church, delete part of the Journal of Discourses, revise FamilySearch.org, correct Elder Nelson's 1993 talk and distance ourselves from FARMS publications. We must remove and stop these absurd and outrageous lies that led me astray in the first place. 

Your brother in combating online falsehood, 

Kolobot

 

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Does it really just come down to him talking publically about things the church would prefer not have made so public? 

I wouldn't put it that way.  Rather, I would put it this way.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Finally, he presents these "concerns" without any attempt to interact or address or even acknowledge the existence of thoughtful and reasoned treatments of them.  

I didn't see any of this in the beginning, but as I've said the nit picky responses and arguments from both him and those attempting to debunk him became tiresome and ugly.  Runnells definitely has interacted, addressed and acknowledged the debunking attempts.

I still believe that the great majority of the issues and concerns he raised were valid enough to study deeper.  I didn't agree with all he wrote or all his conclusions.  But his compiling them all into one source (his letter) was pretty overwhelming for many members to read (and still is).

.

Edited February 10, 2016 by ALarson

[SeekerB]

20 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Good point....when I had my faith crisis...it was FAIR that confirmed my worst fears and then took those fears to a whole new level of cognitive dissonance I didn't know existed...thanks FAIR

That's not my experience.  I got, and still get, exactly the opposite from FAIR.

But, back on topic.  A member who works at getting other members to lose their testimony and leave the church should not be a member.

Edited February 10, 2016 by SeekerB

[Tacenda]

51 minutes ago, SeekerB said:

That's not my experience.  I got, and still get, exactly the opposite from FAIR.

But, back on topic.  A member who works at getting other members to lose their testimony and leave the church should not be a member.

No, you're right at least FAIR is showing a faithful approach to things.  And probably saved many testimonies.  It's just that FAIR is so proficient at answering critics, that it shows so many unknown before's....but I should get back to topic.  Just didn't want to discredit them, I appreciate the honesty they do display...but know that sometimes it's got a bend, but very understandable.  

Edited February 10, 2016 by Tacenda

[Johnnie Cake]

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The made up insinuations of an apostate shared here by an enemy of the faith for the purpose of sowing doubt.

With all due respect Nehor...you are so far off the mark...to insinuate that I am some how an enemy of the faith says more about your biases than mine. 

[Kevin Christensen]

12 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Thank you I appreciate this... I for one would be interested in reading your Coe rebuttal...is it available somewhere?

You are welcome.  And you might be interested in the discussion of Cognitive Dissonance in second of the two essays in response to Runnells and friends.  And thanks to John Dehlin's itchy censor finger, my comments about the Coe interview are gone.  As I recall though, I did point out that the Book of Mormon did not mention iron arrowheads, or brass helmets, and that despite Coe's confident contrast between the Mesoamerican Great Mother and the strictly male Hebrew God, which to them suggested a fundamental cultural incompatibility, there are books like Patai's The Hebrew Goddess, and Dever's Did God Have a Wife, and more recently, Barker's The Mother of God.  I was careful to document everything I posted, since Dehlin had complained about drive-by apologetics.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I would appreciate the perspective from members of this board...

Bad acting and too much Hawkeye.

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree that there is no reason to think that the Q15 or assigned GA's wouldn't have authority to conduct a DC. But "most of the time" isn't what they say. Repeatedly in press releases the church states that DC's are local matters.

CFR.  (I'm not doubting you.  I'd just like to read for myself what it is you are referencing here.)

Quote

Why would a case like this where the impact far exceeds a SP's locality not be considered by the Q15? Why must it be local? They only reason we have the expectation that it should be local is because it is repeatedly stated as such.

This sounds like we are arguing about semantics.  If a General Authority calls a stake president asking about an publicly-outspoken-against-the-Church member of his stake, is that "orchestrating?"

Quote

As far as evidence of top leadership getting involved and directing DC's there are many accounts like the Calderwoods where the SP admitted that he was directed by his leaders to hold a DC.

Multiple hearsay from an interested and hostile source is not particularly persuasive.  What was said?  To whom?  When?  What were the "directions?"  Which "leaders?"  Were they "General Authorities?"  That is, a member of the First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve, the Presidency of the Seventy, the First or Second Quorums of the Seventy (but not the others Quorums of Seventy, as they are not "General Authorities"), or the Presiding Bishopric?

What if the purported call came from an Area Seventy (presumably the Fifth Quorum, as the Calderwoods live in its jurisdiction)?

What if the purported call sought clarification as to what steps, if any, the stake president had taken to comply with the instructions in the Church Handbook of Instruction as pertaining to apostasy?  Would a telephone call about compliance with the CHI be considered "orchestrating?"

Quote

There are accounts of Elder Packer directing DC's for the September 6 and Whitney Clayton being involved with directing John Dehlin's.

Yes, I know.  Gossip and speculation and innuendo.  All of it.  AFAIK, we have yet to see any evidence with probative value.  It's just not there.

Quote

There are numerous accounts but I'd agree it is unlikely to find any solid evidence of these things since any evidence would be from internal memos. Without hard evidence we are left to consider the trustworthiness of someone like the Calderwoods who make claims that their SP admitted direction from the top. Or maybe the SP was lying? It's impossible to know for sure.

Well, we have this account (purportedly written by the Calderwoods themselves): "During talks with our Stake President, who is a genuinely loving and caring man, he told us that he has not received any counsel from anyone above him on what to do with us."  So where are you getting information that the Calderwoods have claimed "that their SP admitted direction from the top?"

The Calderwoods go on to state (speaking of their Stake President): "We've heard through mutual friends that he feels isolated and alone. He said this has been one of the most difficult things he's done as a Stake President. The general authorities are leaving Stake Presidents out to dry by not giving more correct guidelines on how to deal with members talking about difficult church subjects and doubts in public."

So which is it?  Are the Calderwoods accusing the Church's General Authorities of "orchestrating" their disciplinary proceedings, or of failing to give sufficient attention to and direction about such proceedings?

From the perspective of the critics of the LDS Church, our leaders are darned if they do.  And darned if they don't.  They're darned no matter what they do.  Whatever they do, it will be construed in a negative and hostile way.  This is perhaps why, I think, the critics don't hold much sway with the Brethren.  They (the critics) aren't really operating in good faith.

Quote

I'm curious, has anyone ever questioned the Q15 to get a direct answer about their involvement or do statements of non-involvement always come from the Newsroom? It would be great to ask them directly. If I was allowed to ask directly I think I'd get an honest answer. The problem is there is no way to ask directly and the church isn't exactly known for its transparency.

Why would such an inquiry be any of our business to ask?

Thanks,

-Smac