Jeremy Runnells Excommunicated

[JulieM]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Runnel publicly declared that JS was a fraud.  That, and other similar statements is what is in conflict with the church. 

Wouldn't you agree?

I know you're not asking me, but yes. I agree. I'm not sure why Jeremy still wants to be a member. I don't like him being denied an interpreter, but I also don't like how he uses anything like this to make the church look bad.   

I have to believe he knew no one would address what he'd written in the CES letter too.   

I actually feel bad for the stake president. He can't defend himself but I believe he's a good man and he tried to be fair.

Edited April 20, 2016 by JulieM

[VideoGameJunkie]

It's easier to avoid his work now by saying it's just the work of an apostate.

[Russell C McGregor]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

One of the questions he had was, what specifically did he write in the CES letter that was in conflict with the church.  The visions..the marriages..he didn't write any thing down that the church doesn't already acknowledge now.

You know..the least they could do is pretend to have answers,

So first you think they should spend hours and hours writing down what he already knows, in order to satisfy someone who has not the least intention of being satisfied, then you think that they should "pretend to have answers," quite as if you think there aren't any, and they don't think so either.

So the only way to disagree with you and your fellow anti-Mormons is to fake it, is that what you're saying?

 

[USU78]

16 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

It's easier to avoid his work now by saying it's just the work of an apostate.

So  ...  accurate definitions aren't useful in your universe?

[VideoGameJunkie]

6 minutes ago, USU78 said:

So  ...  accurate definitions aren't useful in your universe?

I don't believe everything he wrote is accurate. I've read all 84 pages twice and lots didn't sit with me as accurate. But that's a discussion for another day.

[JLHPROF]

31 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

It's easier to avoid his work now by saying it's just the work of an apostate.

Nah...it was the work of an apostate when he wrote it.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Runnel publicly declared that JS was a fraud.  That, and other similar statements is what is in conflict with the church. 

Wouldn't you agree?

Yes, I would agree if that was a knowable fact,  But I believe Jeremy stated that as his opinion from his own observations,

[Jeanne]

21 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

So first you think they should spend hours and hours writing down what he already knows, in order to satisfy someone who has not the least intention of being satisfied, then you think that they should "pretend to have answers," quite as if you think there aren't any, and they don't think so either.

So the only way to disagree with you and your fellow anti-Mormons is to fake it, is that what you're saying?

 

All I am saying is some of the questions and/or studies came from actual Mormon History and from the church website itself.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

Yes, I would agree if that was a knowable fact,  But I believe Jeremy stated that as his opinion from his own observations,

Exactly. It's his testimony that JS is a fraud and the church is as well and he has publicly declared it. 

That's a statement of belief that is incompatible with his membership in the church. 

 

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

You forgot to add:  "And while we are at it, we will write down the answers to all his questions".  !

That is something between him and God.  He is responsible himself for his choices, not the church, not the apologists, not his mommy and daddy.  Each of us bears the burden of being responsible for our own decisions.

It is a pity that you feel that you have to depend on others for your personal testimony.  You will be greatly disappointed, and you can then wear the badge "I am a victim of the Mormon cult" and write a book telling your story to the world.  

There will be hundreds/ thousands of phone calls and letters congratulating you on your decision.  As Runnells said, it is almost a part-time job answering all those letters and calls.  He is hailed as a hero.

Edited April 20, 2016 by cdowis

[JLHPROF]

Just now, Jeanne said:

All I am saying is some of the questions and/or studies came from actual Mormon History and from the church website itself.

There were NO new questions in the CES letter.  There is a rehash of every anti-mormon claim that could be compiled into one place.  And every one of them has been answered repeatedly.  Now, he may not agree with the answers and they may not have settled his questions to some people's minds.  But his work was not exactly new material.

[flameburns623]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

There were NO new questions in the CES letter.  There is a rehash of every anti-mormon claim that could be compiled into one place.  And every one of them has been answered repeatedly.  Now, he may not agree with the answers and they may not have settled his questions to some people's minds.  But his work was not exactly new material.

I have only glanced over the CES letter but I agree here. 

And even if Jeremy Runnells "owned" every one of those questions as a personal and sincere doubt . . . his behavior has not been that of a doubter, of an unbeliever who is either looking for answers for himself; or else is giving up and is moving forward with his life.

Runnells has been displaying the behaviour of an Evangelical Atheist, of a zealous newfound convert out to destroy the faith of others. 

Reminiscent of the second half of this video. (Warning: some PG13 language included).

 

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

And I think he wanted "witnesses," not to present testimonial evidence, but to observe and/or participate in Runnels' dog and pony show.  I should point out that Runnels could not make this work under the procedures for witnesses outlined in the CHI, since each witness would only be allowed in the council room for a limited period of time.  However, a translator/interpreter would be able to attend the whole thing.

You don't actually think Jeremy might have wanted to use an interpreter to surreptitiously record the disciplinary council, do you?

Oh, wait...

By the way, it would appear that the stake president did provide an interpreter. The problem seems to have been with Jeremy bringing in his own interpreter.

Edited April 20, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

Hamba, I can't watch youtube's, could you explain what that was, please?

[Hamba Tuhan]

Just now, Calm said:

Hamba, I can't watch youtube's, could you explain what that was, please?

It's Jeremy's surreptitious recording of the disciplinary council.

[Calm]

I Found it embedded elsewhere giving me access. bad sound for me, lots of noise.

 So he records it, the interpreter shows up, he expresses surprise, but if I heard it correctly, the man said, you askedfor one, he is here or something else along those lines, correct?  Was that it?

I can't hear it very well.  Is there any explanation given that confirms what Runnells said?  

And most important, has he at any time since the council spoken up about an interpreter being there or allowed the Church to get slammed for something they didn't do?

Bravo for the SP, I am glad he did this. (assuming I have the details right).

[Hamba Tuhan]

Just now, Calm said:

So he records it, the interpreter shows up, he expresses surprise, but if I heard it correctly, the man said, you askedfor one, he is here or something else along those lines, correct?  Was that it?

That's pretty much what I remember, though I think Jeremy showed up with his own interpreter and seemed a bit disappointed or even agitated that he was turned away. I'm at work still so have only spent a few minutes listening to the beginning once.

Quote

I can't hear it very well.  Is there any explanation given that confirms what Runnells said?

I'm not sure what you mean. What did he say?

Quote

And most important, has he at any time since the council spoken up about an interpreter being there or allowed the Church to get slammed for something they didn't do?

I'm not aware of his having spoken up, but (though Bluebell got slammed earlier in this thread for giving someone the benefit of the doubt) he may have; I don't know.

[rodheadlee]

34 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You don't actually think Jeremy might have wanted to use an interpreter to surreptitiously record the disciplinary council, do you?

Oh, wait...

By the way, it would appear that the stake president did provide an interpreter. The problem seems to have with Jeremy bringing in his own interpreter.

Yeah well I expect about 2 dozen apologies from all of the people that believed the Church didn't supply an interpreter. I won't hold my breath. What a waste of space. The things I have to say cannot be printed here.

[juliann]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

I can't hear it very well.  Is there any explanation given that confirms what Runnells said?  

 

That he is an out and out liar? I can't figure this out....did his friend release proof that he was indeed given an interpreter without him knowing?  Why would he want that made public after he lied his head off about being denied one? I only listened until the interpreter was seated where Runnells wanted him. The SP sounds annoyed so at least they will have that to complain about. Bluebell wins the trophy for best comments in this endless thread.

[This still is not an excuse for anyone to take it upon themselves to declare what deaf people need or should have.]

[Rico]

The CES letter was initially addressed to a CES Director who was recommended to Runnells by someone he trusted when his faith crisis began to afflict him.  The unnamed CES Director told Runnells to write down his questions and said he will get back to him.  After months of waiting, he got no response.

The CES letter did not bring up new questions that other critics of the LDS church had not thought of before.  Mormons here claim that his questions have already been addressed.  If that is the case, the unnamed CES Director need not reinvent the wheel.  He should've been able to get back to Runnells in no time.  So why did he choose to ignore Runnells?  

Perhaps he too had a faith crisis...:-)

Anyways, the CESLETTER website did what no previous critic of the LDS church did: it showed how much the Mormon apologists actually agree with Runnells' crticisms either explicitly or by silence.  The "donut charts" say a lot about this.

Runnells' Stake Pres need not personally answer his questions.  All they need to do is bring in an expert to help them, like a full-time teacher working in the CES.  They need not reinvent the wheel.  That's the beauty of the principle of division of labor.

:-)

 

[Calm]

 I am wondering if anything was said that confirmed or contradicted Runnells' narrative of the past weeks in this recording,  including posting several days before the council an email from the SP, which was apparently a response to a request for an interpreter and it stated he was refused in that email and told he could submit what he wanted to say in writing instead. Allegedly quoting the SP.  He then showed up with his own interpreter who was not allowed in.  no one that I am aware of said there was an interpreter there.

This is all I have read as happening including a lot of really nasty indignation elsewhere that an interpreter was not provided.  Till now where it appears one was after all.  SP change his mind after some thought, quite possibly.  Misunderstanding, possibly.  Misrepresentation...if Runnells had a chance to correct the impression and didn't, definitely; there has been too much focused on that issue all over for him not to be aware of the impact.

[flameburns623]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You don't actually think Jeremy might have wanted to use an interpreter to surreptitiously record the disciplinary council, do you?

Oh, wait...

By the way, it would appear that the stake president did provide an interpreter.

Just watched this. 

Good on the Stake President for providing the interpreter. It was my only quibble about the proceedings and I retract those objections as irrelevant. 

I concur that Jeremy Runnells needed to face a Disciplinary Council. 

Whatever decision that Council might have rendered is moot, seeing that Jeremy resigned of his own free will and volition.

Edited April 20, 2016 by flameburns623
Typos

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Rico said:

The CES letter was initially addressed to a CES Director who was recommended to Runnells by someone he trusted when his faith crisis began to afflict him.  The unnamed CES Director told Runnells to write down his questions and said he will get back to him.  After months of waiting, he got no response.

[Wrong.  Runnells clearly states he no longer believedwhen he wrote the letter]

 

..., the CESLETTER website did what no previous critic of the LDS church did: it showed how much the Mormon apologists actually agree with Runnells' crticisms either explicitly or by silence.  The "donut charts" say a lot about this.

[Wrong again.  An intentional and fully aware misrepresentation of the position of FairMormon apologists who engaged him. We had a discussion with his error right on this board. FM intended to demonstrate the problems with hismethod, not do an itemized analysis of each and every claim or even just the errors.  Silence only means that claim was not dealt with, in no way did itindicate agreement.  Once a pattern of error has been demonstrated, intelligent readers should be able to find the problems themselves.  And Runnells' claims of agreement...be sure and read both texts completely before assuming such.]

 

[Calm]

You can see here just how FairMormon evaluates how much we believe he is presenting fact, etc:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Online_documents/Letter_to_a_CES_Director/Other_Concerns_%26_Questions

[sjdawg]

Now it seems there is a leaked recording of the disciplinary council on youtube.   I haven't listen to much but it sounds like the Stake President did provide an interpreter.  That makes a lot more sense than denying the request.   good on him.

 

Edited April 20, 2016 by sjdawg