Jeremy Runnells Excommunicated

Tacenda · August 14, 2019

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Well, they don't really have much else, IMO. This has been addressed many times here before, but there is not much that Runnells got wrong regarding the substance of his facts (other than minor nit picking from what I've seen). One can certainly attack and disagree with his conclusions and his method. But most avoid discussing the actual substance of the letter.

One can also not dispute how effective this letter has been at causing members to have issues and even leave the church after reading it and then doing more research on their own. It's been sad to see....

I have read that Scott Gordon choked up and got emotional at the Fair conference as he talked about how effective this letter has been as an "anti-Mormon" proselyting tool. He talked about how many people have left and that families have broken up or been very hurt because of it.

I would love to hear his presentation and see if he really has found some significant errors in the letter because I have not seen any as of yet (other than minor mistakes and many of those are now corrected from what I understand).

The church is holding out that members will be able to move on w/o the crisis, but even the gospel topic essays are causing members to leave. The inactivity has shot up so much that the real numbers of active members is real low.

ALarson · August 14, 2019

11 hours ago, PacMan said:

Hey, Jeremy, before you go trolling old posts about yourself (because no one cares about you anymore),

Why would you say that? Many still care as evidenced by an entire presentation given at the recent Fair conference. (Or at least they are still concerned over the "success" of his letter regarding how it is affecting many members who've read it...)

How do you know this is Jeremy posting here?

10 hours ago, sunstoned said:

If you want the greatest anachronism of all, it's the content of the CES Letter itself--written AFTER it was purportedly posed to CES. Dishonest and poorly crafted from top to bottom.

Even if this is true (and I agree that by the time he wrote the letter, he was most likely past the point of expecting answers).....what in the letter do you disagree with other than his conclusions?

Just curious....

Edited August 14, 2019 by ALarson

PacMan · August 14, 2019

11 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Classic. Don't address the content, just go after the messenger.

CFR the content. There was nothing but spurious conclusory comments that unnamed questions need answering.

PacMan · August 14, 2019

42 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, they don't really have much else, IMO. This has been addressed many times here before, but there is not much that Runnells got wrong regarding the substance of his facts (other than minor nit picking from what I've seen). One can certainly attack and disagree with his conclusions and his method or motives. But most avoid discussing the actual substance of the letter.

One can also not dispute how effective this letter has been at causing members to have issues and even leave the church after reading it and then doing more research on their own. It's been sad to see....

I have read that Scott Gordon choked up and got emotional at the Fair conference as he talked about how effective this letter has been as an "anti-Mormon" proselyting tool. He talked about how many people have left and that families have broken up or been very hurt because of it.

I would love to hear his presentation and see if he really has found some significant errors in the letter because I have not seen any as of yet (other than minor mistakes and many of those are now corrected from what I understand).

I am sorry, but you are grossly deceived. If you think there's not much that Runnells got wrong, then you are about 5 years behind the times. Runnells's fraud-job is full of misrepresentation, proof-text, naked citations, and unfounded speculation. There are legitimate questions to be asked, but those questions are not in the oft-edited letter.

That you equate "effectiveness" with causing members to leave the church (as opposed to discovering truth) both reveals the disingenuous nature of the letter and your disdain for it.

There's a special place in hell reserved for Jeremy Runnells.

JulieM · August 14, 2019

33 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The church is holding out that members will be able to move on w/o the crisis, but even the gospel topic essays are causing members to leave. The inactivity has shot up so much that the real numbers of active members is real low.

The essays are great, but the problem was that many read the letter before the essays and so not from a faithful perspective. It’s too bad the leaders didn’t get ahead of the problematic issues before Jeremy did.

The essays were written after the CES letter, isn’t that correct?

I wonder if the essays had been written first and really promoted for the members to read, if the letter then wouldn’t have had such an impact?

I agree though that some read the essays and go into a crisis of faith from new material they weren’t previously aware of.

PacMan · August 14, 2019

38 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The church is holding out that members will be able to move on w/o the crisis, but even the gospel topic essays are causing members to leave. The inactivity has shot up so much that the real numbers of active members is real low.

CFR your speculative nonsense. I can say that not a single member in our ward is inactive because of church history issues.

ALarson · August 14, 2019

5 minutes ago, PacMan said:

I am sorry, but you are grossly deceived. If you think there's not much that Runnells got wrong, then you are about 5 years behind the times. Runnells's fraud-job is full of misrepresentation, proof-text, naked citations, and unfounded speculation. There are legitimate questions to be asked, but those questions are not in the oft-edited letter.

That you equate "effectiveness" with causing members to leave the church (as opposed to discovering truth) both reveals the disingenuous nature of the letter and your disdain for it.

There's a special place in hell reserved for Jeremy Runnells.

Once again, you attack the messenger. I get that and I really do not care for his methods or behavior, etc.

But let's pick a topic from the letter....let's get to the actual material or substance presented. How about the topic of Joseph's polygamy? What did Runnells get wrong there (other than his own personal conclusions)?

You keep insinuating that he got much wrong in the actual letter. Name some from the content. I know he could have written it better and I've read the debunkings back and forth (between him, others, and FAIR)....but I've seen nothing really debunked concerning any actual facts that he presented.

I am certainly open to learn of any you've found and willing to discuss it.

Edited August 14, 2019 by ALarson

Tacenda · August 14, 2019

Just now, PacMan said:

CFR your speculative nonsense. I can say that not a single member in our ward is inactive because of church history issues.

I have read on some other boards people share that the essays caused them to leave. It happens because many had heard what was termed anti material on missions or elsewhere only to find out from reading the essays that it was true. How exactly do you want me to provide proof. There is a lot out there, can you give me some time, lol.

ALarson · August 14, 2019

4 minutes ago, PacMan said:

CFR your speculative nonsense. I can say that not a single member in our ward is inactive because of church history issues.

Many don't talk about why they leave or even why they're struggling even though they are active. I can tell you from being in a position of leadership, that many have read this letter and it has caused many to leave or struggle to stay active. As Scott Gordon stated....this letter has been effective and caused pain for many families.

PacMan · August 14, 2019

34 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Why would you say that? Many still care as evidenced by an entire presentation given at the recent Fair conference. (Or at least they are still concerned over the "success" of his letter regarding how it is affecting many members who've read it...)

How do you know this is Jeremy posting here?

Even if this is true (and I agree that by the time he wrote the letter, he was most likely past the point of expecting answers).....what in the letter do you disagree with other than his conclusions?

Just curious....

People care about the letter. But people don't care about Jeremy.

Jeremy is a fraud. He has perpetuated this letter as a "sincere" attempt to find answers. It is not sincere. Not in the least. He has appointed a board to edit what he originally wrote after it was established that he repeatedly didn't know what he was talking about. And he promulgates it all the same as if it were the original.

Many people have raised questions about church history over the years, including Quinn and the Tanners. Jeremy is neither. Jeremy is a regurgitating hack. And if he thinks he's smart, then I personally invite him to debate on any of the issues he has in that letter in a rotating format - he can go first. But he won't do it - you want to know why? Because he runs away when he's challenged. He is not very smart. In another forum where his disciples were praising him, I asked him about the timing of his letter and how it is that he can maintain its sincerity given its editorial board, and further asked how the CES Director refused to answer questions in the letter which didn't exist at the time he allegedly sent it to the CES Director. Wanna know what happened? Jeremy ran away. Just like John Dehlin. Had to find a "safe place" that was good for his mental health. I kid you not.

These guys are cowards and charlatans.

ALarson · August 14, 2019

4 minutes ago, PacMan said:

People care about the letter. But people don't care about Jeremy.

Jeremy is a fraud. He has perpetuated this letter as a "sincere" attempt to find answers. It is not sincere. Not in the least. He has appointed a board to edit what he originally wrote after it was established that he repeatedly didn't know what he was talking about. And he promulgates it all the same as if it were the original.

Many people have raised questions about church history over the years, including Quinn and the Tanners. Jeremy is neither. Jeremy is a regurgitating hack. And if he thinks he's smart, then I personally invite him to debate on any of the issues he has in that letter in a rotating format - he can go first. But he won't do it - you want to know why? Because he runs away when he's challenged. He is not very smart. In another forum where his disciples were praising him, I asked him about the timing of his letter and how it is that he can maintain its sincerity given its editorial board, and further asked how the CES Director refused to answer questions in the letter which didn't exist at the time he allegedly sent it to the CES Director. Wanna know what happened? Jeremy ran away. Just like John Dehlin. Had to find a "safe place" that was good for his mental health. I kid you not.

These guys are cowards and charlatans.

And once again, all you post are personal attacks or insults. We get it....you don't like the guy and question his motives and methods (so do I...I think it's obvious what his intent in writing the letter was and he's been successful at accomplishing that, IMO....).

But, I ask again:

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But let's pick a topic from the letter....let's get to the actual material or substance presented. How about the topic of Joseph's polygamy? What did Runnells get wrong there (other than his own personal conclusions)?

You keep insinuating that he got much wrong in the actual letter. Name some from the content. I know he could have written it better and I've read the debunkings back and forth (between him, others, and FAIR)....but I've seen nothing really debunked concerning any actual facts that he presented.

I am certainly open to learn of any you've found and willing to discuss it.

Edited August 14, 2019 by ALarson

PacMan · August 14, 2019

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Many don't talk about why they leave or even why they're struggling even though they are active. I can tell you from being in a position of leadership, that many have read this letter and it has caused many to leave or struggle to stay active. As Scott Gordon stated....this letter has been effective and caused pain for many families.

You are a perfect example of the type of people that leave the church. I make a comment about those that are inactive. You rebut it by twisting it into a comment about those that are "struggling though they are active." You comment is completely unreponsive to what I said. Just like your demand to discuss the "substance" of polygamy when "Quinton R. Ford's" post said nothing about it.

No wonder you buy into the CES Letter. You can't distinguish between an apple and a hippopotamus.

Tell you what - if you want to talk about polygamy, open a thread and let's debate it. But don't derail the thread here. But be warned - if you open the thread, you better be prepared to answer one question: Why does it freaking matter? You can't support your answer--whatever it is.

bluebell · August 14, 2019

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And once again, all you post are personal attacks or insults. We get it....you don't like the guy and question his motives and methods (so do I).

But, I ask again:

Oh man, let's not. There are dozens of answers to Runnells questions. Dozens of people have gone through his letter item by item, question by question and provided answer after answer. It doesn't make a difference to him or those who agree with him. Why waste any more time on repeated that process?

smac97 · August 14, 2019

20 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, they don't really have much else, IMO. This has been addressed many times here before, but there is not much that Runnells got wrong regarding the substance of his facts (other than minor nit picking from what I've seen).

"His facts" being the operative phrase, I think.

20 minutes ago, ALarson said:

One can certainly attack and disagree with his conclusions and his method or motives. But most avoid discussing the actual substance of the letter.

I quite disagree with you there.

20 minutes ago, ALarson said:

One can also not dispute how effective this letter has been at causing members to have issues and even leave the church after reading it and then doing more research on their own. It's been sad to see....

I agree with you there. But all sorts of things can be "effective" yet inaccurate, "effective" yet poorly reasoned, "effective" yet substantially misleading and dishonest, and so on.

20 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I would love to hear his presentation and see if he really has found some significant errors in the letter because I have not seen any as of yet (other than minor mistakes and many of those are now corrected from what I understand).

There have been many, many responses to Runnells' letter:

I recognize that this is a lot of material to cover. That's sort of them problem that we run into when we get a neophyte like Runnells who presumes to speak broadly about a plethora of issues, but whose writings end up being a lot of "tinkling cymbals and sounding brass."

One of my less pleasant responsibilities as an attorney is responding to lawsuits filed by pro se litigants (plaintiffs who represent themselves, rather than hire an attorney). This becomes less pleasant because

A) the area of law I am involved in - consumer finance litigation - is fairly complex, such that even seasoned attorneys can often make serious mistakes, let alone those not trained or experiences in the law, and
B) pro se plaintiffs are often so out of their depth that they don't even know what they don't know, such that they end up
C) resorting to a scattershot, throw-everything-and-the-kitchen-sink-at-'em approach in their legal pleadings, which in turn
D) I have to spend disproportionate and unreasonable hours responding to.

These disproportionate hours are not time well-spent. They are time spent sorting out the big fat mess that the plaintiff has created and trying to systematically address the legal arguments being presented (such as they are). So that means a lot of context has to be provided. Background has to be explained. Foundation has to be laid. And then comes the substantive rebuttal. All of this takes quite a bit of time and effort, far more than the plaintiff's legal theory really deserves. However, judges want to let people have their "day in court," which means that the defendant's attorney has to sigh, reconcile himself to the task ahead, and then dig in.

I think that seasoned scholars like Daniel Peterson and Jim Bennett and Kevin Christensen and Michael Ash and so on look upon Runnells' letter in the same way. The letter is intellectually lazy. It's a shortcut. It's slapdash. It demonstrates no real time spent in study, no real effort to understand. It's just a pastiche of unrelated gripes cobbled together from the Internet and organized into broad topics.

But you are correct in that it is also "effective." In sowing seeds of doubt, and discord, and ignorance.

A few years back I had a friend come to me with a laundry list of her grievances for leaving the Church. She was reading from a sheaf of papers that I could tell had been printed out from a website. It was pretty obvious that she hadn't really studied these items in any meaningful or in-depth way. She just read the list and accepted it. As I recall, virtually every point she recited is found in the CES Letter (in fact, it may well have been the CES Letter she was reading from).

I let her go on for a while, as I could tell she was angry and was looking to vent. After about 20 minutes of her reading from this list, I asked her if she wanted to talk about these various items. She actually seemed a little surprised, as I think she thought that I would be flummoxed at her endless list of grievances. As she had a number of questions and concerns about the First Vision and the various accounts of it, I asked if if she had read the book 'Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations,' edited by John Welch. I said that it has some pretty good information about this topic. She said no. I also asked if she had read anything written by Jeff Lindsay about the First Vision accounts. She said no. I asked her if she had read anything on the FAIR website about this topic. She said no. I asked her if she would be willing to read some of these things and then have a discussion about this topic. She said no. I asked her to reconsider, and suggested that her conclusions about this topic might not be complete if all she has done is read a long list of criticisms against the Church while simultaneously refusing to listen to the Church and its members explain and defend the Church's position on these issues. Again, she said no. I then asked her why not, and she became angry. I tried to find a way to continue the discussion, but she declined and left. A few weeks later she resigned her membership in the Church.

In retrospect, I think I could have handled that interaction better. I think she was in a state of anger and high emotion, and perhaps I should have allowed her some time and space to let those feelings dissipate. Instead, I attempted to talk and reason with her in the moment. I thought that this is what she wanted (she approached me, after all). However, I don't think she was situated to have a calm and reasoned discussion. I dunno. I recall silently praying while she was reading her diatribe, hoping that I would be able to say things that could mollify her anger and calm her down. I failed in that regard. Perhaps that was an unattainable goal. Perhaps she was bound and determined to view the Church and its teachings and people in the worst possible ways, and I was just one of the last people to talk with her as she walked out the door.

My friend is currently pursuing a course of conduct that may be called "riotous living." I think about her often. There are certainly other factors that have affected the course she is presently taking in life. However, the laundry list of grievances she found online really shook her up. This list was designed not to inform, but to maximize shock value. Through decontextualization and sensationalism. It was designed to foment anger, even hatred. Against the Church, and its doctrines, and its leaders, and its members. And it is effective at achieving these objectives.

Cheap shots presented for shock value. Presentism. Facile criticism. Misrepresentation by omission and distortion. A determined effort to keep these topics decontextualized and sensationalized. Sarcasm. No effort to study or meaningfully understand.

These are the tools of Runnells's trade.

Thanks,

-Smac

PacMan · August 14, 2019

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I have read on some other boards people share that the essays caused them to leave. It happens because many had heard what was termed anti material on missions or elsewhere only to find out from reading the essays that it was true. How exactly do you want me to provide proof. There is a lot out there, can you give me some time, lol.

You're the one that made a statement of fact. The burden of proof is your problem.

Although you highlight another great indicator of the type of people that leave the church--those with an arrogant narrow-mindedness that their small sliver of information is representative of the comprehensive whole, when it is not.

Hestia · August 14, 2019

PacMan is taking a break from the board for a bit.

Sign In

Jeremy Runnells Excommunicated

Recommended Posts

Tacenda

ALarson

PacMan

PacMan

JulieM

PacMan

ALarson

Tacenda

ALarson

PacMan

ALarson

PacMan

bluebell

smac97

PacMan

Hestia

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse