Popular Post ksfisher Posted February 13, 2016 Popular Post Posted February 13, 2016 1 minute ago, Calm said: You might feel differently if you were listening to the heartbreak of the stories of families whose happiness has been destroyed by a member accepting Runnells' stuff as Truth without questioning it. When someone is using their membership to rob people of their savings (I have a temple recommend, you can safely invest your money with me), do you think the Church should let them alone and allow them to continue to make the claims that destroy people's lives? After all, the Church has taught people to be prudent with their money. Isn't that enough care t give them? and if I could add...the church is about more than just a membership card. Members of the church have made covenants with God, and God will not be mocked. If those covenants have been broken we expose ourselves to the full justice of God. When a person is excommunicated it is as if the person had never made those covenants, thus not being held accountable for the breaking of them (they are still responsible for their sins). Thus a loving and merciful God can then, through his church leaders and the promptings of the spirit, return the sinner to the path whereby they may again enter into sacred covenants. 5
Robert F. Smith Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 4 hours ago, Monster said: Some Points Jeremy certainly is an apostate according to how the church defines apostates currently. The article was a classic ad hominem piece. Attack the bearer of the message not the message Monstrous !! 1
volgadon Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 19 minutes ago, omni said: Do you believe the prophets when they make declarations such as these: "Well it's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud. If it's true it's the most important thing in the world." - President Hinckley. "Each of us has to face the matter, either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing." - President Hinckley "Either the Book of Mormon is what the Prophet Joseph said it is or this Church and its founder are false, fraudulent, a deception from the first instance onward." - Elder Holland "If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed." - J. Reuban Clark I personally don't hold such a black and white view of the Church which is why I feel no need to warn by tbm friends and family of the "great fraud". That being said, if this is what is being taught within the highest levels of Church leadership, then I can certainly understand why others, such as Jeremy, might feel the same. If you believed your friends and family were involved in a great fraud that required 10% of their income, several hours of week of their time, and placed restrictions on their choice of clothing, entertainment, language, diet, etc., would you sit idly by, or would you do something about it? From the moment we become members of the Church, we are taught one of the greatest acts of service we can provide to others is sharing the "truth" we have. I can think of no other church or religion that places a greater emphasis on missionary work than our own - it is what we are known for. Yet when our belief paradigm changes we are suddenly expected to remain silent. That is hardly it at all. I've seen trenchant criticism of Runnels from ex-Mormons. This is about someone claiming to be a member being exed for having doubts and concerns that should be handled with pastoral care (whatever he or Dehlin mean by it). If he is a crusader for truth against lies and fraud, then let him own that. 3
Robert F. Smith Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 5 hours ago, Monster said: You would have to show examples of actual lies to make that claim. Not just opinion. See the FairWiki reply at http://en.fairmormonevidence.org/Category:Martin_Harris/Witness_to_the_Book_of_Mormon .
Popular Post Robert F. Smith Posted February 13, 2016 Popular Post Posted February 13, 2016 2 hours ago, Tacenda said: I wish the church would just leave people like Jeremy alone. It just fuels the fire when they go after him. Any church should just let people alone, like the Dehlin's and Runnell's. If the church is true, and Christlike, it should turn the other cheek. You never know what could happen if the church did that, these people might see a way for the church to work for them. The church set itself up for the fall with it's holding back of crucial information, and if the Lord is running things He'd want to just love them back. The Church is the Kingdom of God on Earth and is not an individual person who might "turn the other cheek." As non-Mormon scholar Jan Shipps has pointed out, disciplinary courts practice necessary "boundary maintenance." Some things simply cannot be ignored. As with a misbehaving child, a time-out may be necessary. Disciplinary measures frequently bring reflection, repentance, and a return to the faith. This is the way that God has traditionally dealt with his people Israel, and has been very explicit about it. Or, as Proverbs has it, "spare the rod and spoil the child." Jeremy Runnells has chosen to make war on the Church and the Saints of God. There are consequences. Read the book of Revelation. 5
RevTestament Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 39 minutes ago, omni said: From the moment we become members of the Church, we are taught one of the greatest acts of service we can provide to others is sharing the "truth" we have. I can think of no other church or religion that places a greater emphasis on missionary work than our own - it is what we are known for. Yet when our belief paradigm changes we are suddenly expected to remain silent. Maybe not, but if not, is it unreasonable to expect you to leave? Why does Jeremy seem to want to remain a member if he doesn't believe anything taught anymore, and is actively teaching against it? If he were to remain silent in his questions while trying to figure them out, the church can accept that. But when he is collecting money or trying to make money off his "new gospel" of nonbelief or even anti-belief, yet remain a member, things have gone very awry. I believe he is inwardly angry, and would like nothing better than to try to destroy the church from within - I think that safely qualifies him as an apostate. The church shouldn't be expected to continue to suffer him as a member while he seems to want to make a living drawing members out, and admittedly doesn't believe any of the restored gospel anymore. Sadly he has succumbed to the world. There is nothing wrong with asking him if he would like to tender his resignation from the church, and if not, why not? And given the result perhaps going forward with his excommunication. If he just wants to teach that all we need to do is repent without all the other baggage stuff he is doing, perhaps the church could drop it, but what he is doing is not right - it has gone way beyond having a few doubts about the church. Anyone who wants to make a living by spreading all their doubts within an organization is going to be properly viewed as no longer belonging to that organizational family anymore. He has cut himself off from the covenant. I pray that he will remain open to all truth, and perhaps one day see that the Lord allowed his faith to be tried by design. 3
Popular Post omni Posted February 13, 2016 Popular Post Posted February 13, 2016 33 minutes ago, volgadon said: That is hardly it at all. I've seen trenchant criticism of Runnels from ex-Mormons. This is about someone claiming to be a member being exed for having doubts and concerns that should be handled with pastoral care (whatever he or Dehlin mean by it). If he is a crusader for truth against lies and fraud, then let him own that. I don't agree with how Jeremy has handled the news of the disciplinary court, particularly the vigil and press release, but I will absolutely support his (and any other's) right to not remain silent simply because he no longer believes in the truth claims of the Church. 5
Jeanne Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, Tacenda said: I wish the church would just leave people like Jeremy alone. It just fuels the fire when they go after him. Any church should just let people alone, like the Dehlin's and Runnell's. If the church is true, and Christlike, it should turn the other cheek. You never know what could happen if the church did that, these people might see a way for the church to work for them. The church set itself up for the fall with it's holding back of crucial information, and if the Lord is running things He'd want to just love them back. I agree.. Should LDS youth run across all of this..they are going to be asking some real hard questions to Seminary Teachers. The sad thing is..they might not ask any questions. Edited February 13, 2016 by Jeanne 1
volgadon Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 23 minutes ago, omni said: I don't agree with how Jeremy has handled the news of the disciplinary court, particularly the vigil and press release, but I will absolutely support his (and any other's) right to not remain silent simply because he no longer believes in the truth claims of the Church. Sure, he can speak out about issues, that is not the problem (and I know for a fact that it isn't Smoot's beef with Runnells either). 2
Popular Post canard78 Posted February 13, 2016 Popular Post Posted February 13, 2016 (edited) 9 hours ago, omni said: Do you believe the prophets when they make declarations such as these: "Well it's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud. If it's true it's the most important thing in the world." - President Hinckley. "Each of us has to face the matter, either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing." - President Hinckley "Either the Book of Mormon is what the Prophet Joseph said it is or this Church and its founder are false, fraudulent, a deception from the first instance onward." - Elder Holland "If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed." - J. Reuban Clark I personally don't hold such a black and white view of the Church which is why I feel no need to warn by tbm friends and family of the "great fraud". That being said, if this is what is being taught within the highest levels of Church leadership, then I can certainly understand why others, such as Jeremy, might feel the same. If you believed your friends and family were involved in a great fraud that required 10% of their income, several hours of week of their time, and placed restrictions on their choice of clothing, entertainment, language, diet, etc., would you sit idly by, or would you do something about it? From the moment we become members of the Church, we are taught one of the greatest acts of service we can provide to others is sharing the "truth" we have. I can think of no other church or religion that places a greater emphasis on missionary work than our own - it is what we are known for. Yet when our belief paradigm changes we are suddenly expected to remain silent. Sure, if Runnels feels the church is a destructive influence in the world that does harm to his active friends and family then he is entirely justified in taking action to try to convince them that the organisation is negative and fraudulent. But if he takes that action he shouldn't then be surprised if the organisation he's trying to tear down asks him to leave. His attempt to position himself as a humble doubter simply asking questions and being attacked for doing so is dishonest and disingenuous. Edited February 14, 2016 by canard78 Spelling 12
ttribe Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 23 minutes ago, canard78 said: Sure, if Runnels feels the church is a destructive influence in the world that does harm to his active friends and family then he is entirely justified in taking action to try to convince them that the organisation is negative and fraudulent. But if he takes that action he shouldn't them be surprised if the organisation he's trying to tear down asks him to leave. His attempt to position himself as a humble doubter simply asking questions and being attacked for doing so is dishonest and disingenuous. ^^^This. His "victim" status in this is grandstanding. I think it undermines his credibility. 2
omni Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 33 minutes ago, volgadon said: Sure, he can speak out about issues, that is not the problem (and I know for a fact that it isn't Smoot's beef with Runnells either). I would kindly point you to the post I originally quoted, as I have made no mention of Smoot.
RevTestament Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 50 minutes ago, omni said: I don't agree with how Jeremy has handled the news of the disciplinary court, particularly the vigil and press release, but I will absolutely support his (and any other's) right to not remain silent simply because he no longer believes in the truth claims of the Church. There are many on this board who express various doubts about various truth claims which have been made over the years. And I support their right to have such doubts, and even to some extent encourage those who wish to offer an alternative view of truth. Something about having to always agree with "the prophet" or get excommunicated or shunned just doesn't feel like the truth to me, but something akin to robot programming. Indeed, D&C mentions that our voices should be heard. But I think for the health of the church, these people should have a testimony of the restored gospel - rather than a desire to lead people away from the church at a profit... which seems to be where Jeremy is at. He has gone beyond simply expressing his doubts in a letter. I'm frankly surprised he seems to want to remain a remain a member when he expressly calls Joseph Smith and all the standard works outside the Bible a fraud - I can only think of ulterior motives for his wanting to do so. I would be more than curious to hear from him what his motive is.
6EQUJ5 Posted February 13, 2016 Author Posted February 13, 2016 1 hour ago, omni said: I don't agree with how Jeremy has handled the news of the disciplinary court, particularly the vigil and press release, but I will absolutely support his (and any other's) right to not remain silent simply because he no longer believes in the truth claims of the Church. That's fantastic. But Smoot's post has nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with Jeremy being a dishonest person in the way he has presented himself. 2
emeliza Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 2 hours ago, omni said: If you believed your friends and family were involved in a great fraud that required 10% of their income, several hours of week of their time, and placed restrictions on their choice of clothing, entertainment, language, diet, etc., would you sit idly by, or would you do something about it? If that is the case, than why does he care if he gets excommunicated or not? Or care if he faces a disciplinary council? 1
Popular Post Calm Posted February 13, 2016 Popular Post Posted February 13, 2016 Quote I can only think of ulterior motives for his wanting to do so. I would be more than curious to hear from him what his motive is. It comes across as simply anger that the LDS Church would think it has any right to tell him to do anything in his life imo. He claims that because he has obeyed the rules of living a good life and has only sought and taught truth as he was taught to do by the Church, it would be a gross injustice for him to be excommunicated. There is a complete lack of engagement with the idea that the LDS Church is a faith community, that people are bound to it not by some sort of worthiness equation but by the idea of belonging to God's kingdom, of becoming Saints, of being given a place and people to exercise their faith among. He states he doesn't care about the LDS Church. He has stated it is a fraud (and therefore has no meaningful purpose in terms of affecting eternal life, etc). He thinks if people are young enough to be adaptable, they will have better lives outside the Church. And yet he himself stays within it, though only technically speaking and proclaims the Church has no right to remove him from technical membership even while he has done so himself in every meaningful way save resigning. So far I have come up with two reasons someone might approach membership in this way. The first ties into the fact that he will get more visibility and crediblity when he can claim he is a Mormon in good standing, as he has many times from what I've seen (his justification is that there hasn't been any discipline taken against him, has nothing to do with his actual participation in the faith)...much more interesting narrative to the press and others and one that has been used since the beginning of the Church in one way or the other (I am/was a insider/whistleblower trope). The second occurs to me when I read his statements about how he is going to fight if they try to excommunicate him. The language is extreme imo ("grotesque injustice"), it reads as if the Church is making an all out attack on him while he has "done nothing wrong". That "wrong" and "right" might not be applicable when it comes to membership in an organization seems to not occur to him, would not a company be within its rights to fire an employee that went around telling everyone their product was faulty...even if the product was faulty? And if it was a matter of personal taste and the company owners believed their product was great and met all necessary specifications, but the employee still publicized that it did not, does he really think that employee is required to be kept on just because he is morally upright? Since it seems such an unlikely and illogical position to hold, I wonder if he and others who react in such extreme ways to even the suggestion of excommunication, yet refuse to resign are out to prove to themselves or others that the Church has no power over them, even in areas where people expect such. This tends to backfire if so as it becomes clear he is very emotionally invested in what the Church says about him, no matter how strongly he proclaims he doesn't care about the Church any more. 5
Kevin Christensen Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, Nevo said: Ragtag, adj.: made up of different people or things and not organized or put together well Do you really think that that is an accurate description of the entity that produces the materials that bear the official logo of the Church? As organizations go, the institutional Church is about as monolithic as they come. I certainly don't see it as comparable to a loose community of scholars(!) I'm not sure what you have in mind here specifically, but the "standards, methods, and sources" I'm thinking of were pretty well in place by the early 1980s and the Church—or rather the motley assortment of individuals publishing official church materials—chose to disregard them for the next 30 years. But I suppose reasonable people can disagree about such questions. Well said. The Greek Ekklesia means assembly, a bunch of people, The institutional arm of the church is a small group bunch of people who have never been organized and put together well with other groups within the total assembly of people. Living out here in the east in a tiny branch-like ward I've got just as much claim on being a member of the church as someone working in the archives, or someone working for CES or someone working on the manuals. I learned a long time ago that the Institutional arm of the church is just that, an arm, not the head, nor the entire body. And the independent, unofficial scholars are just as must a church resource to me as the persons who got the job of writing manuals. And I also learned by reading up on the Myers-Briggs Type indicated, just what kind of temperament is likely to thrive in a church office building, and which very different temperament is likely to thrive in the journals. I learned a long time ago that some people learn from traditional text books, and some people go to the original sources. Some people trust to the objectivity of the prosecution, and some want to find things out for themselves. Regarding how quickly new perspectives can or ought to be adopted, we can consider a bit of history, another chapter in Kuhn, "The Resolution of Revolutions" , page 151-152. "...the transition between competing paradigms cannot be made a step at a time, forced by logic and neutral experience. Like the gestalt switch, it must occur all at once, or not at all." "How, the, are scientists brought to make this transposition? Part of the answer is that they are very often not. Copernicanism made few converts for almost a century after Copernicus's death. Newton's work was not generally accepted, particularly on the Continent, for more than half a century after the Principia appeared. Priestly never accepted the oxygen theory, nor Lord Kelvin the electromagnetic theory, and so on. The difficulties of conversion have often been noted by scientists themselves Darwin, in a particularly perceptive passage at the end of his Origin of the Species, wrote, "Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume..., I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all view, during a long course of years, form a point of view directly opposite to mine...But I look with confidence to the future,--to young and rising naturalists, who will be able to view both sides of the question with impartiality." And Max Planck, surveying his own career in his Scientific Autobiography, sadly remarked that "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its oppenents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." Now if the institutional arms lagged behind the rising scholars, that might not seem Ideal, but it is a Realistic expectation in light of known human behavior. One of the easiest ways to make some aspect of Mormon life look bad is to set it up on a high sounding pedestal of Ideal Behavior, or Desired Behavior, and then show how easy it is to knock it off that pedestal. But I think it wiser and more generative of empathy and understanding to consider what is Real. As Brigham Young said, "There is one principle I wish to urge upon the Saints in a way that it may remain with them--that is, to understand men and women as they are, and not understand them as you are."(JD 8:37, quoted in Nibley, Brother Brigham Challenges the Saints, in "Brigham Young and the Enemy, 223. FWIW Kevin Christensen Bethel Park, PA Edited February 13, 2016 by Kevin Christensen 2
omni Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, RevTestament said: Maybe not, but if not, is it unreasonable to expect you to leave? Why does Jeremy seem to want to remain a member if he doesn't believe anything taught anymore, and is actively teaching against it? If he were to remain silent in his questions while trying to figure them out, the church can accept that. But when he is collecting money or trying to make money off his "new gospel" of nonbelief or even anti-belief, yet remain a member, things have gone very awry. I believe he is inwardly angry, and would like nothing better than to try to destroy the church from within - I think that safely qualifies him as an apostate. The church shouldn't be expected to continue to suffer him as a member while he seems to want to make a living drawing members out, and admittedly doesn't believe any of the restored gospel anymore. Sadly he has succumbed to the world. There is nothing wrong with asking him if he would like to tender his resignation from the church, and if not, why not? If you'll notice, I have not criticized the Church with regards to Jeremy's disciplinary council. They are within their rights to do so, and Jeremy certainly falls within the definition of apostasy. I don't feel Jeremy has handled this situation well and suspect he is taking a page from Dehlin's playbook on how to present yourself as a martyr. I like Dehlin and feel he provides an important alternative voice in Mormonism, but the way he handled his excommunication was just silly. My contention is with wanting to silence those who longer believe. The Church has made its bed and now it must lie in it. Edited February 14, 2016 by omni 1
Calm Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 7 minutes ago, emeliza said: If that is the case, than why does he care if he gets excommunicated or not? Or care if he faces a disciplinary council? If he thinks others will have a better life outside the faith...moving on and out of its influence, why isn't he doing the same thing? 4
emeliza Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 3 minutes ago, Calm said: If he thinks others will have a better life outside the faith...moving on and out of its influence, why isn't he doing the same thing? My thoughts exactly.
6EQUJ5 Posted February 13, 2016 Author Posted February 13, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, canard78 said: His attempt to position himself as a humble doubter simply asking questions and being attacked for doing so is dishonest and disingenuous. Edited February 13, 2016 by 6EQUJ5 1
Calm Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 your link is going nowhere useful that I can see
omni Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 1 hour ago, canard78 said: Sure, if Runnels feels the church is a destructive influence in the world that does harm to his active friends and family then he is entirely justified in taking action to try to convince them that the organisation is negative and fraudulent. But if he takes that action he shouldn't them be surprised if the organisation he's trying to tear down asks him to leave. His attempt to position himself as a humble doubter simply asking questions and being attacked for doing so is dishonest and disingenuous. I agree and have said nothing to the contrary. Apparently I didn't initially make myself clear as you are the forth poster to being this up. I do not support Jeremy's actions in response to the disciplinary council, I was responding to a post wishing Jeremy would "just leave the Church alone."
Popular Post Calm Posted February 14, 2016 Popular Post Posted February 14, 2016 12 minutes ago, omni said: My contention is with wanting to silence those who longer believe. Who has actually been silenced who no longer believes by the Church? All the ones that have protested the Church was trying to silence them that i remember are still speaking out just like they were before. While there may be some family dynamics that play into excommunication as a negative for the relationship, even then it is not the Church that is silencing someone, but the partner or other family member (and perhaps this is a good thing if family is important to the person because just as much harm can come from feeling pressured to leave one's faith as it might to be pressured to stay). The commonsense rule of "you can't speak against an organization without getting kicked out" only has a 'silencing' impact on those who want to stay members. And if someone wants to stay a member so they can speak out as a member to make one's protests flashier, then that imo is extremely hypocritical. There is a responsibility of the member to the organization as much as the organization has a responsibility to the member. If the organization undermines the individual, then it is obvious the organization has failed at its end. If the member undermines the organization, then the member has failed the organization in the same way. In the first case, the individual should take a hike and stop contributing their resources to the organization. In the second case, the organization should remove the individual so as to minimize the harm they are causing. 9
Monster Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 3 hours ago, volgadon said: The article is about a specific claim which centers on Jeremy Runnels himself. Thus a critique of that is not an ad hominem fallacy. I must have read a different article. More than once it attacked the character of of Jeremy. Not that I am defending Jeremy, I think is quite clear his intent is to point out problems in the church. But the piece was clearly an attack on him not on the substance of the CES letter. Thus the article is clearly ad hominem.
Recommended Posts