Jeremy Runnells Excommunicated

[Calm]

Overview of the whole work...

http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Online_documents/Letter_to_a_CES_Director

16% fact, 41% spin, 33% errors/mistakes and 10% falsehood

Rico, if you wish to attack the Church, at least put some effort into finding worthwhile and accurate criticisms.  

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

Now it seems there is a leaked recording of the disciplinary council on youtube.  

 

Hamba posted a link.

[Hamba Tuhan]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

 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.

I just took a break and listened again to the first few minutes, and what you've outlined above sounds correct.

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

Now it seems there is a leaked recording of the disciplinary council on youtube.

I sincerely do not know why this is being called 'leaked'. At approximately the 9-minute mark, the footage makes it clear the Jeremy made the recording. Are we to believe that someone stole this surreptitious recording from him without his knowledge and/or consent?

[Calm]

It is really weird.  He apparently wants to be distanced from it., so they make it clear Runnells was not "directly" involved in leaking it.  

So he gave it to someone else to put online but he not involved at all.

[Runnells] "has nothing to do with the leak directly"

Edited April 20, 2016 by Calm

[juliann]

34 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

Just watched this. 

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

I concur that Jermy 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.

His posturing is so transparent that I decided I'd better listen in case he takes it down. It takes him an exceptionally long time to figure out he can't goad the SP into a debate. So he tries to take over the council with questions like "would everyone who has read the church essays raise your hand?" To him that is proof they haven't rather than proof the SP means what he said over and over and over and over that he was given time to make a statement not start an argument. It ends with a flourish of "I'm excommunicating you!" As he grabs his stuff and rushes out with a "goodbye." 

If I was going to say that the Church should stop these courts it would be because no guy down the street should ever have to sit through something like this. I hope he can find more satisfaction with his life now. He did say he would be a Buddhist if he had to choose.

[Hamba Tuhan]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

So he gave it to someone else to put online but he not involved at all.

Yep, it's like how one has to get her/his mate to edit a Wikipedia page for her/him in order to avoid any perceived conflict of interest.

[sjdawg]

I just listened to the recording.  I'm not impressed with either side.  i think both sides went into the meeting with a pre-determined outcome in mind.  

I have witnessed councils before and there has always been the ability to ask and answer questions (not just provide statements) however I think in this case it is better that it didn't degenerate into a debate.   

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, juliann said:

His posturing is so transparent that I decided I'd better listen in case he takes it down. It takes him an exceptionally long time to figure out he can't goad the SP into a debate.

And when it finally dawns on him, he keeps muttering, 'This is crazy'. It genuinely seems like he had no idea how to proceed without his prepared 'gotcha questions'.

Quote

So he tries to take over the council with questions like "would everyone who has read the church essays raise your hand?" To him that is proof they haven't rather than proof the SP means what he said over and over and over and over that he was given time to make a statement not start an argument.

That's precisely what I thought.

Edited April 20, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[Rico]

Calm,

You said: "Wrong.  Runnells clearly states he no longer believedwhen he wrote the letter]"

Me:  What did he not believe? I did not say he was a believer at the time he wrote the letter.  I said he had a "faith crisis" at the time the CES director was recommended to him.  How deep that crisis was for him, I do not know.  A man can fall into heresy first before he falls into full-blown apostasy.  There is a difference between a heretic and an apostate.

Even if he had already gone full apostate mode, what reasons does the Church through the unnamed CES director have for ignoring his questions?  Please tell me.  You claim here that his questions have long ago been addressed.  If this was true, all the CES director need do was to check out these pages here, right?  So did he do that?  If not, why not?

The response by Mormon apologists to his criticsms are actually weak.  They are easily debunked.  In the thread, "A Different God" by Steve Noel where I began to point out the problems in the First Vision, my account has been blocked.  I could not anymore respond to your weak answers.  This has been going on for the last three days.  Therefore, you might think you have answered the criticism when the truth is you haven't.

 

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Rico said:

 

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.  

I think everyone would agree that we do not have all the answers.

 All they need to do is bring in an expert to help them, like a full-time teacher working in the CES.  

You are confused.  This is between himself and God, and he has already gone well beyond an issue of personal doubts, but a deliberate, systematic attempt to destroy the church.

 

 

[Calm]

In his own words, he had moved past his faith crisis:

"In February 2012, Jeremy experienced a crisis of faith, which subsequently led to a faith transition in the summer of 2012. In the spring of 2013, Jeremy was approached and asked by a CES Director to share his concerns and questions about the LDS...."

[Tacenda]

1.  Jeremy was told in the past he would not be provided an interpreter for the D.C..  He therefore brought his own and what do you know, there is provided an interpreter.  So good on the SP to change his mind, and not bad on Jeremy for stating the SP wasn't going to get one because it was the truth.  Having it provided at the last moment doesn't prove Jeremy lied, Rodheadlee and anyone else.

2. Am I the only one that listened all the way through?  

3.  At first I was terribly disappointed, I even felt like my TBMism was coming back, and sad that Jeremy might be turning it all into a big show.  But after listening all the way through, he made a good point wherein he was being accused of going against the church publicly, which is true.  But in the handbook there is a passage that goes along with it that the SP left out.  And that is that Jeremy publicly put out something false about the church.  Jeremy states he's asked 20 times if the things he's gone public with are incorrect, please show him where.  And he expressed that he would like it to be straight from someone representing the church albeit a CES leader etc.  Not a bunch of apologists or as he puts it, the older High Priests we all know in church.  Can't remember his exact words.  So to this day that question is the one he's been asking.

4.  He states that just as the CES letter goes against church so do the essays, so does JS for taking other men's wives and 14 year olds behind Emma's back, his words, and so on, he lists several.

5.  He mentions several quotes from past leaders about the truth being the utmost of importance, and freedom of thought and speech and having the ability to doubt and question openly.  You'd have to listen to it to understand I guess.

6.  He made a point about new members getting this laid out before committing their lives to the church. So transparency, maybe that's the reason for his website and the different translations of the CES letter.

7.  I don't know why I'm numbering my post, it's late I guess.  All of this is tough to figure out.  On one hand it feels like it's wrong to have recorded the D.C., but on the other hand so much is answered by having the recording also.  

8.  Forgot one, Jeremy asks several of those men in the room if they had read the church essays or the CES letter and none of them had.  But after the court and Jeremy bringing them up, pretty sure they will now.  Which brings me to this point...maybe it wasn't such a good idea for the church to put the essays on LDS.org in the first place.

 

[sjdawg]

15 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

1.  Jeremy was told in the past he would not be provided an interpreter for the D.C..  He therefore brought his own and what do you know, there is provided an interpreter.  So good on the SP to change his mind, and not bad on Jeremy for stating the SP wasn't going to get one because it was the truth.  Having it provided at the last moment doesn't prove Jeremy lied, Rodheadlee and anyone else.

2. Am I the only one that listened all the way through?  

3.  At first I was terribly disappointed, I even felt like my TBMism was coming back, and sad that Jeremy might be turning it all into a big show.  But after listening all the way through, he made a good point wherein he was being accused of going against the church publicly, which is true.  But in the handbook there is a passage that goes along with it that the SP left out.  And that is that Jeremy publicly put out something false about the church.  Jeremy states he's asked 20 times if the things he's gone public with are incorrect, please show him where.  And he expressed that he would like it to be straight from someone representing the church albeit a CES leader etc.  Not a bunch of apologists or as he puts it, the older High Priests we all know in church.  Can't remember his exact words.  So to this day that question is the one he's been asking.

4.  He states that just as the CES letter goes against church so do the essays, so does JS for taking other men's wives and 14 year olds behind Emma's back, his words, and so on, he lists several.

5.  He mentions several quotes from past leaders about the truth being the utmost of importance, and freedom of thought and speech and having the ability to doubt and question openly.  You'd have to listen to it to understand I guess.

6.  He made a point about new members getting this laid out before committing their lives to the church. So transparency, maybe that's the reason for his website and the different translations of the CES letter.

7.  I don't know why I'm numbering my post, it's late I guess.  All of this is tough to figure out.  On one hand it feels like it's wrong to have recorded the D.C., but on the other hand so much is answered by having the recording also.  

8.  Forgot one, Jeremy asks several of those men in the room if they had read the church essays or the CES letter and none of them had.  But after the court and Jeremy bringing them up, pretty sure they will now.  Which brings me to this point...maybe it wasn't such a good idea for the church to put the essays on LDS.org in the first place.

 

I have no problem with the recording of the council.  The church keeps official records of them (in which they choose the method of recording what transpired).  It doesn't seem unreasonable for the accused to also want a record of what is taking place.   I don't believe he needs permission from anyone to record it (in Utah).

I just found the entire thing terrible boring with the decisions already reached on both sides.   

[flameburns623]

3 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

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.

I will apologize, though the letter from the Stake President was pretty clear he would NOT provide one. 

And Jeremy Runnells simply stated in his after-event remarks that his own interpreter was "turned away".

Those of us who were initially disappointed that the Church would refuse an interpreter did so in good faith based on the evidence we knew.

And I for one will stand by the main talking point I made, which was that if a person with known limitations requests reasonable accommodations, the request should be honored.

Not for Jeremy Runnell's sake, per se. But for other Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing folks whose feelings toward the Church might be bruised by such a perceived slight. 

I remind you again, the Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing community is one of the most unchurched and estranged-from-church groups around. The LDS Church does well not to widen that divide.

Edited April 20, 2016 by flameburns623

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, flameburns623 said:

I will apologize, though the letter from the Stake President was pretty clear he would NOT provide one. 

And Jeremy Runnells simply stated in his after-event remarks that his own interpreter was "turned away".

Those of us who were initially disappointed that the Church would crefuse an interpreter did so in good faith based on the evidence we knew.

And I for one will stand by the main talking point I made, which was that if a person with known limitations requests reasonable accommodations, the request should be honored.

Not for Jeremy Runnell's sake, per se. But for other Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing folks whose feelings toward the Church might be bruised by such a perceived slight. 

I remind you again, the Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing community is one of the most unchurched and estranged-from-church groups around. The LDS Church does well not to widen that divide.

I''ll forever remember your awesomely written post describing your ailment Flame!  And never to forget we just can't imagine what someone's going through until we've walked in their shoes.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Jeremy asks several of those men in the room if they had read the church essays or the CES letter and none of them had.  But after the court and Jeremy bringing them up, pretty sure they will now.  Which brings me to this point...maybe it wasn't such a good idea for the church to put the essays on LDS.org in the first place.

As Juliann pointed out earlier, it was clear from the beginning that no members of the council were willing to engage Jeremy by answering his questions; consequently, he was forced to interpret their silence. I strongly suspect he over-interpreted it.

3 hours ago, juliann said:

So he tries to take over the council with questions like "would everyone who has read the church essays raise your hand?" To him that is proof they haven't rather than proof the SP means what he said over and over and over and over that he was given time to make a statement not start an argument.

 

[flameburns623]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I''ll forever remember your awesomely written post describing your ailment Flame!  And never to forget we just can't imagine what someone's going through until we've walked in their shoes.

Thanks for your kind words.

I spent a little time writing that.

Time which feels a little wasted know that we see more of what really transpired.

[Gray]

I'm very happy to have been wrong. The SP took the high road and Runnells took the low road. But who will get to Scotland first?

[ttribe]

41 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm very happy to have been wrong. The SP took the high road and Runnells took the low road. But who will get to Scotland first?

+1. Glad to hear the SP did the right thing on the interpeter.  Runnels not acknowledging that is lousy.

[Rico]

Calm, 

Assuming he was already an apostate by the end of 2012, as per your info "In the spring of 2013, Jeremy was approached and asked by a CES Director to share his concerns and questions about the LDS...."

Fact: It was the CES Director who approached him for his concerns, and not the other way around.  You seem to imply that since he has abandoned the faith totally, he should not have obliged with the request to write down his questions. That is absurd.  If Jeremy loved his Church membership, he would LOVE to be proven wrong.  That would give him reasons to hold on to the faith.  But he was clearly denied the reasons to hold on.  Therefore, it is really beside the point to even point out he was an apostate when he wrote the letter.  

You claimed that his questions were nothing new, that they have all been answered.  Where were they answered?  Here in this website?  If so, then all the CES Director need do is cut and paste answers from here.

So did he?  If not, then why not?

Jeremy would not have a leg to stand on had the CES Director made good on his word that he would get back to him after he sent him his questions.  In fact, we would be hearing a lot about how the CES Director responded to him, and that could be used against Jeremy for going public with his questions.  But we never hear about his heroic attempts to answer Jeremy, do we?

All that we ever hear is that many wise men have already answered his questions.

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I'm very happy to have been wrong. The SP took the high road and Runnells took the low road. But who will get to Scotland first?

did you hear the one about the Scottish man who walked 10 KM to watch a match and then was too tired to climb the fence?

[rodheadlee]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

1.  Jeremy was told in the past he would not be provided an interpreter for the D.C..  He therefore brought his own and what do you know, there is provided an interpreter.  So good on the SP to change his mind, and not bad on Jeremy for stating the SP wasn't going to get one because it was the truth.  Having it provided at the last moment doesn't prove Jeremy lied, Rodheadlee and anyone else.

 

 

Oh, really, just what the heck does it mean? No I did not listen to all 44 minutes of it, I have a life.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Rico said:

Calm, 

Assuming he was already an apostate by the end of 2012, as per your info "In the spring of 2013, Jeremy was approached and asked by a CES Director to share his concerns and questions about the LDS...."

Fact: It was the CES Director who approached him for his concerns, and not the other way around.  You seem to imply that since he has abandoned the faith totally, he should not have obliged with the request to write down his questions. That is absurd.  If Jeremy loved his Church membership, he would LOVE to be proven wrong.  That would give him reasons to hold on to the faith.  But he was clearly denied the reasons to hold on.  Therefore, it is really beside the point to even point out he was an apostate when he wrote the letter.  

You claimed that his questions were nothing new, that they have all been answered.  Where were they answered?  Here in this website?  If so, then all the CES Director need do is cut and paste answers from here.

So did he?  If not, then why not?

Jeremy would not have a leg to stand on had the CES Director made good on his word that he would get back to him after he sent him his questions.  In fact, we would be hearing a lot about how the CES Director responded to him, and that could be used against Jeremy for going public with his questions.  But we never hear about his heroic attempts to answer Jeremy, do we?

All that we ever hear is that many wise men have already answered his questions.

Answering his questions isn't going to do anything for him.  It's not his questions that are an issue it is his conclusions, at least from the church's perspective.  He recorded the preceedings of the court and the leadership didn't say much other than to quote him where he had concluded the Church is fraudulent.  If his letter was just a series of questions then great.  But it's filled with conclusions.  Take his first question, "What are 1769 King James Version edition errors doing in the Book of Mormon?"  Most of us say, "what does that matter?"  I realize it's a question, a legitimate one, but if there are errors in the BoM, just as in the Bible, why does that mean the Church is not true?  HIs second and third questions are the same as the first.  People have written pieces and done studies and have drawn conclusions about why these errors are there.  No definitive answers are there.  It's all guesswork, because we don't know.  But because no one knows definitively it does not follow the Bom is not scripture, nor that it doesn't bring spirit to people who want it.  It doesn't work for him.  That's great. 

 

[ALarson]

8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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.

He did make a statement after the proceedings, correct?  I'm not sure if he came out and addressed the crowd or if he just posted a written statement (I'll have to check the link), but either way he should have included that the SP did the right thing and provided an interpreter in the end.  

Like others have posted, it appears he did not lie about the request initially being denied and that he brought his own interpreter who wasn't allowed in.  But, he should have definitely added and clarified that there was one provided when he got into the room.

8 hours ago, juliann said:

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

This is very true.  The debate over whether or not Runnells needed an interpreter or was faking it, etc., was not necessary IMO.  He does have hearing problems and asked for an interpreter (which is his right to do). I'd still stand up for anyone in that situation.

.

Edited April 20, 2016 by ALarson