Popular Post Calm Posted February 10, 2016 Popular Post Posted February 10, 2016 (edited) 12 minutes ago, rockpond said: 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. I think it is more moneymaking ventures to destroy people's faith are problematic. Also those to take advantage of people's faith with "spurious materials". Edited February 10, 2016 by Calm 5
ALarson Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 2 minutes ago, stemelbow said: 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. Not cool.....
juliann Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 I have to wonder if the recent hacking of a stake president's email may have been the last straw. The "stake president" advised all members to read the CES letter. Even if Runnells didn't mastermind that, it comes down on him. At any rate, whenever someone persistently disseminates false or distorted information and uses a claim that they are a member in good standing to do it, is waving a red flag in front of a bull. And really, can anyone seriously deny that he has disseminated false information based on the number of "corrections" he has had to make? Just because some of what he complains about is real doesn't excuse what isn't. 4
rongo Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Well, since he is apparently contesting his excommunication, the charitable assumption would be that he wants to stay in the Church. We'll see if he actually comes to his council. That isn't the pattern recently with other apostate disciplinary councils, is it? For some reason, all of them recently have chosen to not attend.
rongo Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said: 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. I'm also noticing a trend for apostates to claim some sort of hardship in an effort to push back the disciplinary council. When this is denied, then they try to portray it as mean-spirited and callous. We just had an octogenerian pass away in our ward. He was on hospice, and dying of cancer. His family caregivers would have been able to leave for several hours for something important. Runnells' invoking "hospice care" has "try to get out of it for now and use it against them if it doesn't work" written all over it. 2
smac97 Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 4 minutes ago, rongo said: We'll see if he actually comes to his council. That isn't the pattern recently with other apostate disciplinary councils, is it? For some reason, all of them recently have chosen to not attend. Well, Denver Snuffer and Kate Kelly both declined to attend. I can't recall whether Dehlin and Rockwood and the Calderwoods their respective disciplinary proceedings. Thanks, -Smac
Calm Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 4 minutes ago, rongo said: We'll see if he actually comes to his council. That isn't the pattern recently with other apostate disciplinary councils, is it? For some reason, all of them recently have chosen to not attend. When the press was willing to show up...? Dehlin went to his. Kelly didn't given it was in DC and she was in Utah and at the time she stated she couldn't fly back out, but she got the press attention and did the vigil anyway. Can't remember any other names at the moment.
rongo Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 40 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: So if Runnells had made his letter more faith promoting he wouldn't be facing this court? It's clear to me that he's being tried for apostate activities that have occurred *after* the CES letter. The CES letter itself isn't even necessary to discipline for apostasy, although it of course is a big piece as well. If he behaved as he has, it wouldn't matter if the original CES letter was "more faith-promoting." 1
stemelbow Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 17 minutes ago, juliann said: I have to wonder if the recent hacking of a stake president's email may have been the last straw. The "stake president" advised all members to read the CES letter. Even if Runnells didn't mastermind that, it comes down on him. At any rate, whenever someone persistently disseminates false or distorted information and uses a claim that they are a member in good standing to do it, is waving a red flag in front of a bull. And really, can anyone seriously deny that he has disseminated false information based on the number of "corrections" he has had to make? Just because some of what he complains about is real doesn't excuse what isn't. Being one who read the CES letter when it was first out and didn't think much of it thereby leaving it my dust, I'm curious what corrections were made to it. Has he had different versions?
Calm Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 (edited) 36 minutes ago, smac97 said: Well, Denver Snuffer and Kate Kelly both declined to attend. I can't recall whether Dehlin and Rockwood and the Calderwoods their respective disciplinary proceedings. Thanks, -Smac Snuffer went but decided not to go in when his kids weren't allowed in as well. Kelly didn't go to the proceedings being in Washington, but at that time was at a vigil for her in SLC (and iirc, they were both disappointed they weren't able to announced their excommunication that night but received letters in a day or two). Dehlin went with cameras and a speech afterwards with his wife at his side and looking very, very uncomfortable imo. Waterman attended his as well. I don't know if press showed up, but he did a couple of interviews about it. As far as I can tell, the Calderwoods attended theirs as well. Edited February 10, 2016 by Calm
VideoGameJunkie Posted February 10, 2016 Author Posted February 10, 2016 I always forget that if you're excommunicated, you can eventually down the road become a member again if you're worthy.
Ahab Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 15 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: The creator of the CES letter is having his court of love Sunday February 14th on Valentines Day. I just hope the CES Letter doesn't make the news. This topic has been merged with "The Court of Love" topic. I wonder if he is still upset that Bruce Willis killed his brother and was asking some questions to find out more about that.
Ahab Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 1 minute ago, VideoGameJunkie said: I always forget that if you're excommunicated, you can eventually down the road become a member again if you're worthy. Yeah, about as close to reincarnation as we can get.
Johnnie Cake Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 (edited) duplicate post Edited February 10, 2016 by Johnnie Cake
Johnnie Cake Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 11 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Being one who read the CES letter when it was first out and didn't think much of it thereby leaving it my dust, I'm curious what corrections were made to it. Has he had different versions? Yes...he's made several revisions...correcting errors, including perspective checks given him by FAIR but also keeping his general over arching questions that either remain unanswered or the answers given remaining un satisfying... but the bulk of his initial work remaining intact in that world of we'll agree to disagree
Scott Lloyd Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 19 minutes ago, smac97 said: Well, Denver Snuffer and Kate Kelly both declined to attend. I can't recall whether Dehlin and Rockwood and the Calderwoods their respective disciplinary proceedings. Thanks, -Smac Dehlin showed up for his and wanted to have a "note taker" present after he was told he couldn't record it.
Calm Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 (edited) For some reason I can't post the actual material so you will have to go to the link yourself if you want to have access to Runnells' comments without having to search for them: http://en.fairmormon.org/Question:_Did_FairMormon_do_%22more_to_destroy%22_the_testimony_of_the_author_of_the_%22Letter_to_a_CES_Director%22_than_any_%22anti-Mormon%22_source%3F HOpefully this works Edited February 10, 2016 by Calm
Johnnie Cake Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 52 minutes ago, stemelbow said: 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. Interesting... and disappointing...
ALarson Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 (edited) 33 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Being one who read the CES letter when it was first out and didn't think much of it thereby leaving it my dust, I'm curious what corrections were made to it. Has he had different versions? What I saw were several debunking attempts by FAIR and Runnell attempting to debunk the debunkings. It gave me a headache after awhile trying to follow it and became so tedious and almost ridiculously nit picky. As far as I saw, there was nothing major "corrected" and nothing that really changed in the content of the letter. But, there was mainly complete disagreement regarding nearly every conclusion the "other side" reached from the information available. So the arguing back and forth became tiresome, IMO. If there were some major changes in the content of the letter (or corrections), I would be interesting in cutting to the chase and seeing those corrections. Last I heard someone named Johnny was helping Runnells write a response that would blow FAIR (and Brian Hales) out of the water with all of the "new" discoveries and evidence they'd uncovered. I read a few excerpts of what they'd written and it was a rambling mess (again, my opinion) and I don't know if it was ever even published. Maybe someone has more info on that here? . . Edited February 10, 2016 by ALarson
mfbukowski Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said: 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. I suppose it depends on the person. People who are likely to get excommunicated are also probably NOT likely to understand the gospel very well. I guess my hypothetical person was one who both DID understand the gospel well but got hung up on some one principle to the point of apostasy and encouraging others to join. I can see that sort of thing with SSM or polygamy or women and the priesthood, where one became insistent that the church just totally blew it on one principle, and then through thought and prayer "repented" and decided that they might have been wrong, based on information they did not have previously. My positions appear to be unorthodox- I think they are not. But if I actually got called in, I think my attitude would be that the council was incorrect, and I would look forward to resolving the issue on the other side, but frankly I cannot imagine throwing a fuss or encouraging others to follow me. Depending on what the issue was, I might very well back down simply because these are all just models we construct from our own revelations, and even I am wrong sometimes- as evidenced by a current thread. It happened once before in 1984 I think. Someone actually thought I was arrogant. Can you imagine that of humble little me? Edited February 10, 2016 by mfbukowski 1
rongo Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Dehlin showed up for his and wanted to have a "note taker" present after he was told he couldn't record it. Yeah, absurd demands on the council are another recent trend. I think they are intended to try to pin it on the Church as the Church's fault when they don't end up participating in their council. Snuffer demanding that his kids be allowed in, or he wouldn't attend, was ridiculous.
smac97 Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 4 minutes ago, rongo said: Yeah, absurd demands on the council are another recent trend. I think they are intended to try to pin it on the Church as the Church's fault when they don't end up participating in their council. Snuffer demanding that his kids be allowed in, or he wouldn't attend, was ridiculous. And Kate Kelly claimed that she couldn't afford the airfare (though shortly thereafter she somehow managed to squeeze her followers for a few thou so she could buy a top-of-the-line laptop for herself). Thanks, -Smac
ALarson Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Dehlin showed up for his and wanted to have a "note taker" present after he was told he couldn't record it. I see nothing wrong with that request considering the importance of these courts. But, I wasn't aware that notes were not already taken during these proceedings. Do you mean that he wanted to bring in his "own" note taker?
Calm Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 9 minutes ago, ALarson said: Last I heard someone named Johnny was helping Runnells write a response that would blow FAIR out of the water with all of the "new" discoveries and evidence they'd uncovered. I read a few excerpts of what they'd written and it was a rambling mess (again, my opinion) and I don't know if it was ever even published. Maybe someone has more info on that here? Apparently they are working on Part 3
consiglieri Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 7 hours 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. Thanks, -Smac Why can't they both be acting in good faith? Or does your paradigm not allow for that?
Recommended Posts