Smoot Nails It!!!! The Facts About Jeremy Runnels

[Tacenda]

deleted

Edited February 14, 2016 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

Need to admit that I just remembered reading that the whole goal is to get as many people aware of these issues in the first place.  Wish I'd remembered where I read it, but it was someone or them...John or Jeremy, that want the Disciplinary Court as public as possible.  They want it out there.  Now I just need to figure out how legit the reasoning is behind it.

 ETA:  In a partial reading of this blog, maybe this is what JD and JR are doing, are they more or less whistle blowers?

http://upwardthought.blogspot.com/2016/02/i-have-been-excommunicated-from-lds.html?m=1

Edited February 14, 2016 by Tacenda

[Monster]

13 hours ago, volgadon said:

Ad hominem would be to dismiss the letter because of Runnells' character. It does not. What it does is dispute a claim made by Runnells and his supporters, a claim which rests on his character.

First you say it does not dismiss the claim because of his character, then a breath later you say the claim rest on his character. Ad Hominem for sure.

[BlueDreams]

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Need to admit that I just remembered reading that the whole goal is to get as many people aware of these issues in the first place.  Wish I'd remembered where I read it, but it was someone or them...John or Jeremy, that want the Disciplinary Court as public as possible.  They want it out there.  Now I just need to figure out how legit the reasoning is behind it.

 ETA:  In a partial reading of this blog, maybe this is what JD and JR are doing, are they more or less whistle blowers?

http://upwardthought.blogspot.com/2016/02/i-have-been-excommunicated-from-lds.html?m=1

In their minds, maybe. From what I've seen, no. From whatever upwardthought's definition would be definitely not (why'd you link to this anyways?).

Definition of whistleblower: a person who informs on a person or organization engaged in an illicit activity.

JD was presenting information and whatever activities he disagreed with the church on were not actually illicit in natural but based on his sense of morality and acceptable behavior.

JR's letter doesn't appear to whistle much illicit activity just throwing doubt based on his sense of what truth should look like (ie. based on his moral assumptions or expectations). But i've read about a page and a half of the thing before calling it good. maybe the illicit behavior was on page 56. 

 

11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I don't believe the fault lies entirely on Jeremy, the church might need to take some blame. They might want to put out an essay apologizing for putting so many members in circumstances that cause disruption and heartache.  Why is it all the doubter's fault?  They didn't write the church lesson manuals, they didn't save face of the Smith's and their reputations.  The disillusioned members are the ones having their faith ripped out from under them over learning these things.  To the point they don't even know if God exists.  More ex-LDS it seems, have lost their testimonies not only that the church is true, but that God exists.  Doesn't that make anyone in the presidency feel the least concerned?  That the church didn't provide a solid belief system to enable members to have a personal relationship with the Lord and not so concentrated on a religion.  So that when that religion no longer feels right, they at least have the relationship with God. 

Members aren't dumb...if they became disaffected over the information Jeremy has concerns over, it's just because they were unaware in the first place.  Even if one or two items caused them disbelief, those items are probably factual.

The church isn't for everyone, if members on this board know these facts and still believe, then the members that learn things from the letter, might have had issues before reading the CES letter...I don't know, or to some of you...they didn't study long enough. 

Tacenda, this sounds more like overlaying your experience as a basic template for what actually happens within the church body. I haven't had said experience. My testimony of the church or JS itself was literally one of the last things I gained a testimony of and it's in no way on similar terms as say my belief in Christ/God. God is perfect, church ain't. Christ is my savior and I owe my life to his sacrifice, JS isn't and I don't owe him my life, though I respect what he went through. And I didn't learn my faith/relationship with God inspite of the church but because of it in a lot of ways. So for me the church did "provide a solid belief system" (whatever that means). Personally, sometimes I read things like this and it feels like some give way to much power to "the church." When I read this phrase with its descriptors it's somewhat foreign to my understanding of the "the church" and ergo some of my experiences with it. It doesn't mean my experiences are the true experiences and face of the church. But I think it's pertinent to recognize the diversity of experience that can come from the same entity and not overlay our experience as the absolute model for anything. 

 

With luv,

BD 

[volgadon]

48 minutes ago, Monster said:

First you say it does not dismiss the claim because of his character, then a breath later you say the claim rest on his character. Ad Hominem for sure.

I said it does not dismiss the letter.

[Glenn101]

Paul maybe was looking forward not only to the near future, but the Restored Future when he said "For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." (Acts 20:29-30)

History indeed does seem to be repeating itself.

 

Glenn

[Calm]

11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I guess I need to read up more, where has Jeremy lied or hid something Cal and Volgadon? 

His claim that he was just asking questions for one thing...

[nealr]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Unfortunately, I was not able to attend her presentation that day, but since I consider the opposition of good and evil to be necessary, we probably do not agree.  However, I don't know why she says that.

In my opinion, the Doctrine of the Two Ways is integral to Judaism and Christianity -- Cf. Deuteronomy 11:26, 30:15-20, Psalm 1, Proverbs 4:18-19, 12:28, 15:24, 28:6,18, Jeremiah 21:8, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 15:17, 33:14; 1QS 3:16 - 4:26 (Community Rule); Testament of Abraham 11 - 12 rescension A, and 8 - 9 rescension B; Testament of Asher 6; Matthew 5:14-18, 7:12-14, 19:16-26, 22:34-40, Luke 13:24, John 10:9-10, 14:6, Romans 12:16-21, 13:8-12; Didache 1 (Doctrina Apostolorum), Barnabas 18 - 20; II Nephi 2:5-29, 4:4.  It was also a central feature of ancient Egyptian religion -- L. Lesko, The Ancient Egyptian Book of Two Ways (Berkeley: UC Press, 1972).

Book of Mormon Central did a KnoWhy feature on this very concept last month:

http://www.knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/are-there-really-only-two-churches

[nealr]

2 hours ago, Monster said:

First you say it does not dismiss the claim because of his character, then a breath later you say the claim rest on his character. Ad Hominem for sure.

I am afraid you are not quite grasping the issue here. The ad hominem fallacy is when you dismiss an irrelevant claim by attacking the character of the person making it. I.e., Jeremy Runells is a liar, therefore, the CES Letter is bogus. That would be an example of ad hominem.

However, when people make public statements about themselves and their intentions, those statements are open to public scrutiny, and such scrutiny is entirely legitimate. It is technically the ad hominem argument. Fallacies are, at least most of the time, illegitimate forms of actual, legitimate types of argumentation, but since most people are only familiar with (and only use) these labels as fallacies, it is generally not helpful to use those labels when talking about a legitimate example.

The blog post in question is about public statements Jeremy is making about himself and his intentions, not the CES Letter. It investigates those specific claims, and finds them wanting. At no point does it say that because we know Jeremy is spinning a false narrative about himself we know the CES Letter is false. It only concludes that, contrary to Runnells claims in his press release, he is an outright apostate and the Church is within its rights to discipline him appropriately. Note, specifically, the conclusion here, which anticipated the accusation of ad hominem fallacy.

Quote

And since I already know that Jeremy is going to cry ad hominem here (it is his standard response to anyone who ever questions his account of things), let me point out, paraphrasing him (as quoted by Fox News):

I asked questions (about his current version of the story), I shared my concerns (with its accuracy), and I shared facts and information that are backed by his own statements and actions. So if sharing the truth, and publicly, is ad hominem, then I think that’s a problem. 

 

It is undeniable that Jeremy Runnells is in open apostasy against the Church, and as such is unsurprisingly being subjected to a disciplinary council. His disciples may write gushing (if not wholly misleading) hagiographies of him to be used as didactic tools among the (un)faithful, but responsible news organizations will hopefully do their homework before blindly buying into his blatantly deceptive narrative and ludicrous non-scandal.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, nealr said:

I am afraid you are not quite grasping the issue here. The ad hominem fallacy is when you dismiss an irrelevant claim by attacking the character of the person making it. I.e., Jeremy Runells is a liar, therefore, the CES Letter is bogus. That would be an example of ad hominem.

However, when people make public statements about themselves and their intentions, those statements are open to public scrutiny, and such scrutiny is entirely legitimate. It is technically the ad hominem argument. Fallacies are, at least most of the time, illegitimate forms of actual, legitimate types of argumentation, but since most people are only familiar with (and only use) these labels as fallacies, it is generally not helpful to use those labels when talking about a legitimate example.

The blog post in question is about public statements Jeremy is making about himself and his intentions, not the CES Letter. It investigates those specific claims, and finds them wanting. At no point does it say that because we know Jeremy is spinning a false narrative about himself we know the CES Letter is false. It only concludes that, contrary to Runnells claims in his press release, he is an outright apostate and the Church is within its rights to discipline him appropriately. Note, specifically, the conclusion here, which anticipated the accusation of ad hominem fallacy.

 

I find that very often those who cry "ad hominem" in discussions about critics of the Church don't grasp the meaning of the term. Often it would be more accurate for them to claim invective, although even that is not always the case. 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, ksfisher said:

I'll check with Lavina, I live down the street from her.

Tell her "Hi" from me when you go.

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, omni said:

I generally prefer to view a world filled with shades of gray.  While there are definite black and whites (good and evil), I don't feel the Church and Dehlin fall into those categories.  

The two of them have such stark differences that I find it hard to believe that they are not opposites of some sort.

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Need to admit that I just remembered reading that the whole goal is to get as many people aware of these issues in the first place.  Wish I'd remembered where I read it, but it was someone or them...John or Jeremy, that want the Disciplinary Court as public as possible.  They want it out there.  Now I just need to figure out how legit the reasoning is behind it.

 ETA:  In a partial reading of this blog, maybe this is what JD and JR are doing, are they more or less whistle blowers?

http://upwardthought.blogspot.com/2016/02/i-have-been-excommunicated-from-lds.html?m=1

So was that blog response Jeremy Runnells?  Why didn't he put his name on it?  I have no problem with him making it as public as he wants.  That is his right and privilege.  I think there is no question of his apostasy.  It was as clear as day, and he wanted it that way.  The question of whether he is a "whistleblower" is a matter of personal judgment on the part of each person making an independent evaluation.  Since  nearly all of his claims are false, I doubt that he is any sort of whistleblower.  Instead, he appears to be a poorly informed hothead.

[sjdawg]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So was that blog response Jeremy Runnells?  Why didn't he put his name on it?  I have no problem with him making it as public as he wants.  That is his right and privilege.  I think there is no question of his apostasy.  It was as clear as day, and he wanted it that way.  The question of whether he is a "whistleblower" is a matter of personal judgment on the part of each person making an independent evaluation.  Since  nearly all of his claims are false, I doubt that he is any sort of whistleblower.  Instead, he appears to be a poorly informed hothead.

I don't believe that was Runnells.  Not sure who that was.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 2/14/2016 at 9:50 PM, Tacenda said:

I don't believe the fault lies entirely on Jeremy, the church might need to take some blame. They might want to put out an essay apologizing for putting so many members in circumstances that cause disruption and heartache.  Why is it all the doubter's fault?  They didn't write the church lesson manuals, they didn't save face of the Smith's and their reputations.  The disillusioned members are the ones having their faith ripped out from under them over learning these things.  To the point they don't even know if God exists.  More ex-LDS it seems, have lost their testimonies not only that the church is true, but that God exists.  Doesn't that make anyone in the presidency feel the least concerned?  That the church didn't provide a solid belief system to enable members to have a personal relationship with the Lord and not so concentrated on a religion.  So that when that religion no longer feels right, they at least have the relationship with God. 

Members aren't dumb...if they became disaffected over the information Jeremy has concerns over, it's just because they were unaware in the first place.  Even if one or two items caused them disbelief, those items are probably factual.

The church isn't for everyone, if members on this board know these facts and still believe, then the members that learn things from the letter, might have had issues before reading the CES letter...I don't know, or to some of you...they didn't study long enough. 

Of course the LDS Church (along with all other religious organizations) will always lose members.  That goes with the territory.  Judas found Jesus unsatisfactory, some of the Children of Israel did not agree with Moses, and the long diaspora of the Jews was punishment for having gone astray.  This is nothing new, and accusations will always be made.  Whether they are true or not is another, very personal matter.  Everyone must make his own decision.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So was that blog response Jeremy Runnells?  Why didn't he put his name on it?  

The author linked to a book of his...not a relative, I am assuming (his name is Robert Smith  ):

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1519103719/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1519103719&linkCode=as2&tag=weeawh-20&linkId=DWXE4UPLVTLR6KV4

Runnells' council is in March now, I believe.

This Smith's reason for apostasy sounds more like Snuffer and not much at all like Runnells or Dehlin.

Edited February 15, 2016 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

In situations like this, where the apostasy is so clear-cut, the individual ought just to avail himself of the administrative name-removal process and have it done expeditiously and quietly.

To put everyone through the trouble and heartache of a disciplinary council while publicizing it through mass and social media seems to serve no other purpose than grandstanding and attention-getting with a misguided and vain endeavor to embarrass the Church. It strikes me as an abuse of the process.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

The author linked to a book of his...not a relative, I am assuming (his name is Robert Smith  ):

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1519103719/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1519103719&linkCode=as2&tag=weeawh-20&linkId=DWXE4UPLVTLR6KV4

Runnells' council is in March now, I believe.

This Smith's reason for apostasy sounds more like Snuffer and not much at all like Runnells or Dehlin.

Thanks for the heads up, Calm.    If the rumors get back to me, at least I'll know what they entail.

[Robert F. Smith]

30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In situations like this, where the apostasy is so clear-cut, the individual ought just to avail himself of the administrative name-removal process and have it done expeditiously and quietly.

To put everyone through the trouble and heartache of a disciplinary council while publicizing it through mass and social media seems to serve no other purpose than grandstanding and attention-getting with a misguided and vain endeavor to embarrass the Church. It strikes me as an abuse of the process.

 

Well, yes, Scott, but he may be trying to sell more books.  Any idea who this guy is and where he is?

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well, yes, Scott, but he may be trying to sell more books.  Any idea who this guy is and where he is?

I thought it was Runnells. That's who I was referring to, although what I said could be applied to others.

[Tacenda]

Sorry to confuse everyone....the blog was random...but thought it tied in because according to the blogger, one should get out there what their grievances are.  So I was trying to find an acceptable reason for JD and JR doing what they are with the news conferences, vigils, what have you.

[canard78]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The two of them have such stark differences that I find it hard to believe that they are not opposites of some sort.

Which? Good and evil or the church and Dehlin? I'd agree if you mean the former but for the church and Dehlin to be characterised as polar opposites is something of an exaggeration. 

[BlueDreams]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In situations like this, where the apostasy is so clear-cut, the individual ought just to avail himself of the administrative name-removal process and have it done expeditiously and quietly.

To put everyone through the trouble and heartache of a disciplinary council while publicizing it through mass and social media seems to serve no other purpose than grandstanding and attention-getting with a misguided and vain endeavor to embarrass the Church. It strikes me as an abuse of the process.

 

I wonder how much of it is family and cultural related as it is about their own PR. Both JR and JD were multigenerational and my guess that most if not all of their families were mormon forever. Some of the ways that I've seen them discuss the church or their place in the community as members, particularly around their excommunication, is seen as a right and expectation (personal, social, etc) moreso than a privilege and responsibility. The candle light vigils personally drive me nuts and are the epitomy of their sense of right to membership and catered mormon identity v. privilege of membership and religious responsibility. In my head, candle vigils are there for gruesome deaths, horrifying injustices, and tragedies. Last time I had a vigil I participated in was for 9-11. This is an excommunication....no one dies here, he's not expected to leave his home and family, he's not being carted to prison for trumped up charges, he's not even expected to stop attending church. He just can't keep acting like he's a member and use that as leverage for his platform/vendetta.   

 

With luv,

BD

Edited February 15, 2016 by BlueDreams

[Damien the Leper]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In situations like this, where the apostasy is so clear-cut, the individual ought just to avail himself of the administrative name-removal process and have it done expeditiously and quietly.

To put everyone through the trouble and heartache of a disciplinary council while publicizing it through mass and social media seems to serve no other purpose than grandstanding and attention-getting with a misguided and vain endeavor to embarrass the Church. It strikes me as an abuse of the process.

 

Agreed. Going through with the DC seems rather narcissistic. The church won't be affected and the membership doesn't care. Runnells should just hand ina resignation and save everyone the trouble. 

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, canard78 said:

Which? Good and evil or the church and Dehlin? I'd agree if you mean the former but for the church and Dehlin to be characterised as polar opposites is something of an exaggeration. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, canard, but they seem to reject each other in very strong terms.