Jeanne Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Calm said: Do you think it would be appropriate for a lawyer to show up at Runnells' door with a writ or whatever it is called to cease and desist contact with the Church (as in not allowing him to enter church owned buildings or attend any church functions)? No...he hasn't resigned..the ball is still in the church's court. But as a member..I don't see why he can't go to church. What he thinks is probably the same of at least 10 people there. He just has to keep his mouth shut. Edited February 15, 2016 by Jeanne
Calm Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 16 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I recall Quinn had three men in suits show up on his doorstep. Maybe they had papers I don't know, I need to read more about it. Of course we know they are not police but elders of the church. http://www.slate.com/articles/life/faithbased/2012/11/d_michael_quinn_and_mormon_excommunication_the_complicated_life_of_a_mormon.html Nor were they lawyers, were they, with the intent of using legal means to enforce desired behaviour from Quinn, right? It makes sense for church leaders to visit with the person being excommunicated or do you think it is better for them to just go ahead without any input from the individual? 1
Tacenda Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 Just now, Calm said: Nor were they lawyers, were they, with the intent of using legal means to enforce desired behaviour from Quinn, right? It makes sense for church leaders to visit with the person being excommunicated or do you think it is better for them to just go ahead without any input from the individual? Stake President and two counselors. I know this story, but have forgotten it. It just seems the church will forever be on this road. And Quinn still believes the church is true. Which is interesting.
Calm Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 3 minutes ago, Jeanne said: No...he hasn't resigned..the ball is still in the church's court. But as a member..I don't see why he can't go to church. What he thinks is probably the same of at least 10 people there. He just has to keep his mouth shut. Who is forcing him not to go to Church? I was using that as an example to demonstrate how unreasonable it would be for someone to resort to using lawyers in an attempt to intimidate the Church into not taking action against them. If it is unreaonable for the Church to use lawyers in person at someone's door to force someone to cease contact, it is unreaonable imo for someone to use lawyers showing up at someone's door to intimidate the leader into not acting. Not saying other efforts would be wrong, just your scenario of doorstep intimidation tactics is.
6EQUJ5 Posted February 15, 2016 Author Posted February 15, 2016 Moderators -- as folks can't seem to stay on topic, please shut this thread down.
Jeanne Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 Hi..just checking in to see if !!this post will refresh the Discussion Board..to my eyes here, no one has posted for almost 40 minutes...now..I know that is just not possible! Maybe I am banned???
Wiki Wonka Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Talk about entitlement mentality! Some people these days think they can call the cops about anything! Reminds me of one of my all-time favorite YouTube videos. A woman calls the sheriff's department because a local Burger King screwed up her order. Give it a listen if you're not acquainted with it. It's hilarious! After listening to this, I fear for the future of the human race. 1
cinepro Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 2 hours ago, consiglieri said: One of the main issues I have with disciplinary hearings for apostasy is that it seems from what I have heard (from those who have attended) that it is not a hearing at all. At least, not a hearing to investigate charges and bring forth evidence and allow the accused the ability to meet that evidence in any serious way. Instead, the accused is summoned in, usually not knowing anything about the specifics of the charges against him; i.e., what is it that was written or said that the Church finds offensive and why. It is only at the hearing itself that the accused is told the specifics of the allegations, and then is expected to mount a defense at the hearing itself. I think such hearings would comport more with due process if the letter summonsing the person to the disciplinary hearing contained any and all specific allegations together with their source; then allowed the accused to respond in writing prior to the hearing. Okay, let's go with that idea. Suppose Jeremy Runnells' SP saw the light and said "This time, I'm going to do it differently. We're going to run this disciplinary council like a hearing. We'll let Jeremy bring in any counter evidence, and speak in his own defense. The High Council will weigh the evidence and make a decision." The charges are that Runnells is guilty of "Apostasy", which is defined as "repeated, clear and open public opposition to the Church, its leaders and its doctrine." As "evidence", Runnell's claims that he no longer believes in the Church (made in 2012 and reiterated in his essay here) are presented: I was not a believer of the Church on November 11, 2012 when I gave the above advice to another individual’s post seeking advice about his father trying to bring him back into the Church. The fact that I posted “MormonThink.com” nine months after my faith crisis and 4-5 months after I stopped believing in the summer of 2012 doesn’t mean anything. ------------------------------------------------------------- FAIR’s point is moot and invalid and pointless as I already mentioned in the beginning of my letter to the CES Director that I stopped believing around 10 months before in the summer of 2012. http://cesletter.com/debunking-fairmormon/ces-conclusion.html The High Council has been asked to fully read the entire CES Letter. The argument is made that the CES Letter is largely focused on diminishing faith, and while the facts presented in it may be true, the presentation of those facts and the extra-textual arguments are done in a way that attacks the foundation claims of the Church regarding Joseph Smith's role and the validity of The Book of Mormon and The Book of Abraham. It is then shown that Runnells' current course of action is to solicit financial help to broaden his influence in the following ways: What I'd Like to Accomplish Update the CES Letter for softer tone and some minor edits Remove “Why I Lost My Testimony” Subtitle and redo book cover HTML version of the CES Letter Kindle and ePub versions of the CES Letter Paperback printing of the CES Letter Potentially new app for CES Letter Increase social media presence HTML version of Spanish CES Letter Portugeuse translation of the CES Letter (PDF and HTML) German translation of the CES Letter (PDF and HTML) Russian translation of the CES Letter (PDF and HTML) French translation of the CES Letter (PDF and HTML) Swedish translation of the CES Letter (PDF and HTML) Japanese translation of the CES Letter (PDF and HTML) Italian translation of the CES Letter (PDF and HTML) Some redesign and adjustment of current website to accommodate new versions, translations and audio of CES Letter Updating and fixing some minor mistakes (typos, design, etc.) on website Catching up and debunking FairMormon’s newest claims and attacks (full-time job) Rebuttal to Mormon polygamy apologist Brian Hales Part I, Part II, Part III and Part IV Rebuttals to Mormon apologist Kevin Christensen Rebuttals to other Mormon apologists More time to give more thorough and personal attention to those seeking my help Create better resources for those struggling with the Church's truth crisis Create a Nonprofit to take the CES Letter project to new heights http://cesletter.com/ces-letter-at-the-crossroads.html The "prosecution" rests. Now, what kind of a defense would someone offer? 2
cinepro Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 8 minutes ago, Wiki Wonka said: After listening to this, I fear for the future of the human race. As long as we find something like this remarkable, you have no need to fear. It's the stuff that we don't find remarkable anymore that should really freak you out. 2
Popular Post USU78 Posted February 15, 2016 Popular Post Posted February 15, 2016 3 hours ago, consiglieri said: That's cool. I agree reasonable people can disagree about this. If I were in charge (!), I would just want to make sure the Church looks as above-board and transparent as possible. The problem with transparency is something I have noted many times on this board in years past: The right of priest/penitent to have their interactions in private remain private is hard-won and should not be discarded simply because someone is presently in a snit about the disciplinary process. Indeed, it is arguably true that the disciplinary process is that priest/penitent interaction whose proceedings should be protected from prying more than any other, as the probable embarrassment to the penitent is incalculable should the priest disclose anything associated with the proceedings. Just because a penitent person today chooses to disclose, in a wholly self-serving fashion, his perceptions of the proceedings does not excuse the priest from his responsibility to keep the proceedings confidential. You would rightly howl should a stake high councilman disclose all the nasty details of a disciplinary counsel to the soon-to-be-ex-wife-of-the-penitent-soon-to-be-former-husband, especially where, in a fit of pique, the husband trashes the process and the participants publically ... only later to regret his acting out. He could well maintain an action for the public disclosure of private facts against the councilor, the council, the stake presidency and the Church corporate, especially where he could demonstrate harm arising out the a disclosure they should have known he would not have authorized were he in his right mind. Transparency is over-rated in Churches. In governments? Undervalued. 6
Calm Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 1 hour ago, 6EQUJ5 said: Moderators -- as folks can't seem to stay on topic, please shut this thread down. Mods don't read every thread. You probably should report the thread if you want them to shut it down.
Russell C McGregor Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 On 14/02/2016 at 3:51 AM, omni said: No, sorry for the confusion. I was originally responding to a specific post wishing "people would just leave the Church alone." Which in turn was responding to a specific post wishing the Church would just leave poor innocent Jeremy alone.
Recommended Posts