mfbukowski Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 6 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. Well that is due to a clear biblical admonition: "Snuffer the little children to come unto me...." 3
VideoGameJunkie Posted February 10, 2016 Author Posted February 10, 2016 Here's a good piece I found that tries to debunk the CES Letter side by side in the same format that the letter was written in. http://debunking-cesletter.com/
Mystery Meat Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 1 hour 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. Your tone regarding the Church has changed a lot over the last few years since I started participating on the board. It is both stark and sad. 2
consiglieri Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 6 hours 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. Why is publishing the truth about certain aspects of Mormonism necessarily the same as "a concerted effort to tear down the faith of the Saints"? Oh, wait. Never mind.
consiglieri Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 Just now, Mystery Meat said: Your tone regarding the Church has changed a lot over the last few years since I started participating on the board. It is both stark and sad. And evinces an evolution toward greater light and knowledge.
ALarson Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 Just now, Calm said: Apparently they are working on Part 3 Ugh! Have you read the first 2 parts? Like I said above, I've only read excerpts, but it was painful to try and get through it. I wanted to yell, "If you have something new, present it!". If you've read it, anything groundbreaking or new? 1
Calm Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 Just now, mfbukowski said: Well that is due to a clear biblical admonition: "Snuffer the little children to come unto me...." Ow, that hurt. 1
consiglieri Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 4 hours ago, smac97 said: Second, I think it is beyond reasonable dispute that church disciplinary councils are, in virtually all circumstances, "local matters." But when you are talking about church disciplinary councils relating to persons who have garnered popular support for unpopular views, the evidence is that such are frequently orchestrated from above.
mfbukowski Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 1 minute ago, consiglieri said: Why is publishing the truth about certain aspects of Mormonism necessarily the same as "a concerted effort to tear down the faith of the Saints"? Oh, wait. Never mind. Once again the definer of TRVTH etched in stone has spoken The thinking is clearly over. 3
consiglieri Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 4 hours 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. That's because the General Authorities tend to use the local leaders as their fall guys in such matters. But not always effectively. That's why some evidence has bubbled to the surface. As in the case of Rock Waterman. And D. Michael Quinn.
Johnnie Cake Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 (edited) right now I'm kind of disgusted with both sides...I wish the church would have just ignored Runnells and left him alone and I wish Runnells wouldn't have turned this into a press circus . As I've said earlier I respect the churches right to police its boundaries and accept or reject whomever they want within the church...but using a church court as their chosen means to remove someone from the church is barbaric...if you don't want them in... just remove them, send them a form letter and be done with it period. Church courts are an expression of barbaric patriarchal power over fellow humans, designed to bring them to bare and submission to the mindset of church authority. I only wish that we could all just get along with each other and fine common ground...I hate all of this us vs them bullshit...I'm really just tied of it all Edited February 10, 2016 by Johnnie Cake
consiglieri Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 4 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: I have nothing to support my speculation since it is speculation you can dismiss the question...but many believe that these court s are orchestrated from above... I'd have to find a source but I believe that Grant Palmer's church court was pushed from above...at least according to Grant quoting his SP...but then how reliable can the claims of an apostate be...they clearly have a motivation to distort and lie... Don't forget at least one of the September 6 disciplinary actions from 1993 were orchestrated by Elder Packer. Elder Oaks admitted to as much, if memory serves.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 8 minutes ago, ALarson said: 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? That was my understanding. And I wasn't offering a value judgment, merely trying to refresh Smac's memory as to whether or not Dehlin attended the council.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 3 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Don't forget at least one of the September 6 disciplinary actions from 1993 were orchestrated by Elder Packer. Elder Oaks admitted to as much, if memory serves. CFR.
consiglieri Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 2 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: I don't understand though why supporters will be holding a vigil for him on Sunday. He didn't die. If you believe the truth claims of the LDS Church, his excommunication will be more disastrous than mere death.
smac97 Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 7 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Why can't they both be acting in good faith? Or does your paradigm not allow for that? Sure it does. Reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things. But reasonable minds needn't be blinkered, either. Runnells' conduct, to me, demonstrates a lack of good faith. I would applaud anyone who A) said otherwise and B) said so while maintaining a straight face. Thanks, -Smac
consiglieri Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 1 hour 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 am going to have to ponderize this comment.
consiglieri Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, juliann said: Just because some of what he complains about is real doesn't excuse what isn't. I agree with you, Juliann. And I believe the same criteria should apply to the LDS Church. Edited February 10, 2016 by consiglieri
rongo Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 12 minutes ago, consiglieri said: But when you are talking about church disciplinary councils relating to persons who have garnered popular support for unpopular views, the evidence is that such are frequently orchestrated from above. Define "orchestrated." And "frequently." Put a number to it. Thanks.
Calm Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 (edited) 15 minutes ago, ALarson said: Ugh! Have you read the first 2 parts? Like I said above, I've only read excerpts, but it was painful to try and get through it. I wanted to yell, "If you have something new, present it!". If you've read it, anything groundbreaking or new? Like I said before, if I can, I try to help on the personal interaction level. I get too annoyed with his style (format and language) so it has been probably since he showed up here that I read any of it.. I will ask someone who probably can help. Edited February 10, 2016 by Calm
consiglieri Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 1 hour ago, rongo said: 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. I believe John Dehlin's council was pushed back because the father of his stake president passed away.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 4 minutes ago, consiglieri said: If you believe the truth claims of the LDS Church, his excommunication will be more disastrous than mere death. But apparently he doesn't believe that. I question whether you do.
consiglieri Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 (edited) 42 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. You of all people should be suspicious of a meeting wherein the person on trial cannot keep a record of the proceedings. P.S. I have apparently run out of my allotted comments for today so am unable to respond to any questions at present. Cheers! Edited February 10, 2016 by consiglieri
stemelbow Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 33 minutes ago, ALarson said: 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. I saw that too. Fewf! 33 minutes ago, ALarson said: 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? . . Ok. what you describe in your last paragraph sounds familiar to me. Particularly how they were going to go after Brian Hales. But, now that you mention it, I too have not seen anything come of it, but I don't recall ever seeing anything written just a number of claims.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 7 minutes ago, consiglieri said: You of all people should be suspicious of a meeting wherein the person on trial cannot keep a record of the proceedings. P.S. I have apparently run out of my allotted comments for today so am unable to respond to any questions at present. Cheers! I'm suspicious of a hostile party and attention seeker wanting to keep such a record of a confidential proceeding and what he intends to do with said record. 1
Recommended Posts