WHY is Jeremy Runnels Facing Church Discipline?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Honestly...its disappointing to learn that Dehlin deleted your posts...

From what I have heard, not uncommon.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I guess Jeremy wanted to postpone the council because he has a family member in hospice, but it didn't work. It's going to be this Sunday. He's giving a press conference tonight at 6PM I believe mountain time.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I don't understand though why supporters will be holding a vigil for him on Sunday. He didn't die.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I don't understand though why supporters will be holding a vigil for him on Sunday. He didn't die.

To make it a bigger deal and to give another reason for the press to show up, imo.

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

From what I have heard, not uncommon.

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.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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. 

"Somehow" is one word. Oh, and I am absolutely right. Your enemyship is an empirical truth.

[Calm]

3 hours 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.

From Runnells, back a few years when it was first issued...he is taking corrections in the discussion (you can find this by searching):

The start of the conversation was this and then Jeremy confirms it:

Quote

Jeremy has told me that he is under no illusion that he's going to convince or change the CES Director's mind. At the end of the day, he wrote the letter for his children who will one day ask their father why he left.

Quote

Besides, I didn't write this for the CES guy. I'm not under any illusion that I'm going to change his mind. It's not going to happen. I wrote this for my kids who one day are going to ask their dad why he left the faith.

Notice he has already "left the faith" in his mind at least.

I have no doubt that the CES director asked him for his list of problems because he wanted to help him.  I have little doubt that once the CES director saw his list, that he realized that Runnells was not communicating with him for that purpose and that is why he did not respond.  Or he may have come across the commentary that Runnells participated in about the letter and realized it was fruitless even if at first he was going to work on it.

Edited February 10, 2016 by Calm

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

"Somehow" is one word. Oh, and I am absolutely right. Your enemyship is an empirical truth.

Let's not make this thread personal.  Let's fix this by singing Kumbayah!

-Smac

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Let's not make this thread personal.  Let's fix this by singing Kumbayah!

-Smac

Ok.  This made me laugh. out. loud.  

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

It is not the Mormon Death Penalty even for a Mormon.  Besides if you don't believe Mormons have power, who would care?  It would be like someone putting a voodoo curse on you.

I have been excommunicated from Catholicism.  Good for them- I don't care at all.  If you don't believe in their power, it's just like a crazy guy on the street corner saying you are going to hell.

He has the option to repent and be re-baptized.

After he dies and sees the errors of his ways, theoretically he could still get some kingdom of glory- maybe even celestial, who knows- I do not presume to know God's will for individuals.

The church has a policy that if you preach against the church, you define yourself obviously as an "apostate".  Makes sense to me.

Excommunication means he cannot preach in church.  He will be invited to attend sacrament meeting and continue studying the gospel if he wants to.  He will be welcome at church functions, as long as he doesn't preach against the church.

If Hillary Clinton started saying that ever person in America should carry a gun and use it if necessary, and that taxes on all corporations should be repealed to stimulate the economy, and that illegal immigrants should be deported and the FBI used to find them, how do you think she would do within the Democratic party?

It's a publicity stunt.  He is following his beliefs and the fact that he pretends to care is ludicrous.  For him it's like being kicked out of my tree house club, with a welcome to come back whenever he can be a good boy.

I was making my point from a believers standpoint...and I said the equivalent of the death penalty.  I've sat in on 1 too many disciplinary courts.  The ones I was involved in were never fun for either party.  While I respect that some welcomed their departure from the church others were absolutely inconsolable with grief with being excommunicated.  In speaking with them it was the Mormon death penalty.  The unspoken reality is also that while we can speak of all of the so called benefit's of excommunication, for some it is devastating and try as they might...not all parties are loving, friendly or supportive of those who undergo the process.

[Calm]

Also Runnells submitted his letter for advice on improving it to the exmormon list on reddit:

Quote

Need Feedback! My TBM grandpa asked me to speak to his CES Director friend about my concerns. CES guy offered to talk to me. This PDF is a rough draft of what I'm sending over to both CES guy and grandpa. Need your feedback/advice, guys. Thanks!

Not someone who is in the doubting stage anymore.

And his intent was that others use it:

Quote

I will also be including a Word copy so that you and anyone can make the document your own. I stand on the shoulders of giants and all I've done was compiled many of their work and put it in my own style and narrative.

 

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Let's not make this thread personal.  Let's fix this by singing Kumbayah!

-Smac

I prefer Louis Armstrong:

 

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

From Runnells, back a few years when it was first issued...he is taking corrections in the discussion (you can find this by searching):

The start of the conversation was this and then Jeremy confirms it:

Thanks for the extra insight, Calm.  I do understand that he wasn't expecting to change the CES Director's mind, but I wonder if he expected a response from him?  I also have to wonder how much discussion had gone on between them prior to this, do you know?  Why did the CES Director ask him to write his concerns and issues down for him, is another question.

Edited to add that I saw your edit above which answers my questions.  Thanks!!

.

Edited February 10, 2016 by ALarson

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Well, an uncharitable cynic could surmise that turning his disgruntlement into a money-making venture was part of the plan from the get-go.

And since uncharitable cynicism is all the rage in this thread . . . 

Thanks,

-Smac

To be fair...maintaining and defending his CES letter was becoming a full time operation.  FAIR seemed to have unlimited assets while Runnells was doing everything all on his own while maintaining a a full time job.  It was beginning to take a toll on his family.  He looked to the internet for financial support so that he could dedicate all of his working hours to his project while leaving his non-working hours to his family...I certainly don't fault him for doing this

[Johnnie Cake]

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There is no "line."  Conduct and words matter.  Motive matters.  Context matters.  Individual and particular circumstances matter.

There is no "line."  There is the exercise of sound judgment.  Discretion.  Discernment.  Discussion.  Prayer.  Inspiration.

Thanks,

-Smac

So if Runnells had made his letter more faith promoting he wouldn't be facing this court?

[Jeanne]

3 hours 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.

I do believe that Jeremy spoke to his father first..and the CES director was a friend of his..and that was the connection there. 

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

To be fair...maintaining and defending his CES letter was becoming a full time operation.  FAIR seemed to have unlimited assets while Runnells was doing everything all on his own while maintaining a a full time job.  It was beginning to take a toll on his family.  He looked to the internet for financial support so that he could dedicate all of his working hours to his project while leaving his non-working hours to his family...I certainly don't fault him for doing this

I will.  I have no respect for his "work."  None at all.  He has chosen a dishonorable course of action.  That his decision to attack his own religion and to spend huge amounts of time doing so (I'm skeptical of that, frankly) has harshed on his family time doesn't really elicit sympathy from me.  That's about as hokey an excuse as I ever heard.

So yes, I fault him for this.  Expressly and explicitly.  Dishonorable "work" should be faulted.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 10, 2016 by smac97

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Thanks for the extra insight, Calm.  I do understand that he wasn't expecting to change the CES Director's mind, but I wonder if he expected a response from him?  I also have to wonder how much discussion had gone on between them prior to this, do you know?  Why did the CES Director ask him to write his concerns and issues down for him, is another question.

What I am getting from what I am reading and have read---which makes it pretty much guessing---is that he was conversing with his believing grandfather, explaining why he didn't believe any more and his grandfather feeling overwhelmed thought it would be good for him to talk to someone the grandfather saw as likely informed on the issues, the grandfather's CES friend.  The CES guy apparently told Runnells that he would respond after he received the letter, but apparently never did or if he did, Runnells never saw it and assumed he didn't respond (I don't always get emails people send to me, so I always make that assumption that it could have been lost in cyberspace, the person thinks they have sent it, but deleted it by mistake, I missed it in spam, etc).  Given the conversation going on the internet at the time of the publication...both before and afterwards, if I had been the CES guy I wouldn't have responded myself as I would see it as only giving him more ammunition to take public (people were asking him to publish the response, I do not remember seeing anything that suggested he was going to respect the guy's privacy).

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

To be fair...maintaining and defending his CES letter was becoming a full time operation.  FAIR seemed to have unlimited assets while Runnells was doing everything all on his own while maintaining a a full time job.  It was beginning to take a toll on his family.  He looked to the internet for financial support so that he could dedicate all of his working hours to his project while leaving his non-working hours to his family...I certainly don't fault him for doing this

I've learned on these boards that money making ventures by the Church are to be applauded.  Money making ventures by "apostates" are evil and/or considered priestcraft.

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

To be fair...maintaining and defending his CES letter was becoming a full time operation.  FAIR seemed to have unlimited assets while Runnells was doing everything all on his own while maintaining a a full time job.  It was beginning to take a toll on his family.  He looked to the internet for financial support so that he could dedicate all of his working hours to his project while leaving his non-working hours to his family...I certainly don't fault him for doing this

FM's unlimited assets was (for the first few years iirc) pretty much one person (on occasion two guys) focusing on this to begin with along with  his other FM work and an occasional help with locating more difficult material from others as well as proofreading.  No specific funding of it either as he just used what was already available.  Just as Runnells got help from the exmormon reddit site where he "crowdsourced" his work.  Though the FM volunteer was able to figure out how to use material that was already there (given that most of the stuff wasn't new) in a nicely streamlined fashion so it didn't take a toll on his family.  We wouldn't want it to.

It was his choice to maintain and defend and his choice to put in as much time into it.

A bit ago it expanded because others became interested in it, like Brian Hales who recently joined with FM (but does much of his stuff independently).

Edited February 10, 2016 by Calm

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

So if Runnells had made his letter more faith promoting he wouldn't be facing this court?

You are proceeding under a false premise.  First establish that his letter was intended to be "faith promoting" at all, and then we can proceed with whether he should have made it "more" so.

There is no reasonable dispute about the nature and intent of his letter.  None at all.  And promoting faith is nowhere near an apt description.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

What I am getting from what I am reading and have read---which makes it pretty much guessing---is that he was conversing with his believing grandfather, explaining why he didn't believe any more and his grandfather feeling overwhelmed thought it would be good for him to talk to someone the grandfather saw as likely informed on the issues, the grandfather's CES friend.  The CES guy apparently told Runnells that he would respond after he received the letter, but apparently never did or if he did, Runnells never saw it and assumed he didn't respond (I don't always get emails people send to me, so I always make that assumption that it could have been lost in cyberspace, the person thinks they have sent it, but deleted it by mistake, I missed it in spam, etc).  Given the conversation going on the internet at the time of the publication...both before and afterwards, if I had been the CES guy I wouldn't have responded myself as I would see it as only giving him more ammunition to take public (people were asking him to publish the response, I do not remember seeing anything that suggested he was going to respect the guy's privacy).

Thanks for all of this information.  It explains a lot of the background and quite possibly why the CES Director didn't respond.  I had no idea that Runnells went public with the letter when he wrote it and before he gave the director sufficient time to respond.  That is all very interesting and important to know to put everything in context here.  

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I do believe that Jeremy spoke to his father first..and the CES director was a friend of his..and that was the connection there. 

Thanks Jeanne.  This is what Calm wrote too (except she remembered that it was his Grandfather....either way, it gives me some background).  

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Honestly...its disappointing to learn that Dehlin deleted your posts...

Over the years Dehlin has deleted nearly all my posts.  I had one interaction via email about it in which he promised he'd post my comments, but never did.  I honestly didn't expect him to care after the email exchange, but he said he would do it.  He didn't.  In each case I was challenging his or guests claims about something.  I think he might worry that opposition could cost him. 

[Calm]

34 minutes 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.

Definitely.