Jeremy Runnells Excommunicated

[stemelbow]

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.

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 respect him for his choice and his resolve.  I too was worried as it started and how defiant he was.  Then I realized the relationship between he and the SP were already strained.  The SP didn't seem at all interested in what Jeremy was saying.  He didn't seem at all concerned about Jeremy.  To be fair it is true Jeremy didn't seem at all concerned about the SP or anyone else either.  It was cold and it was adorable the way he went about it.  It really had nothing to do with the questions he asked, at least from the Church's point of view, it had to do with the conclusions he's drawn.  That's all the SP was focused on were his conclusions.  Questions are endless about most things.  I don't know how Jeremy doesn't realize that. 

[stemelbow]

8 hours 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.

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.

:-)

 

There was nothing unique about his questions.  They all came from somewhere.  Of course they've been asked before.  That doesn't mean the answers are definitive or that there are many answers to be found for them.  It wasn't the questions, but the conclusions that was the focus of his court, at least from the Church's perspective.

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

There was nothing unique about his questions.  They all came from somewhere.  Of course they've been asked before.  That doesn't mean the answers are definitive or that there are many answers to be found for them.  It wasn't the questions, but the conclusions that was the focus of his court, at least from the Church's perspective.

I agree.  There was not much incorrect or any major errors within his letter, but I didn't agree with many of his conclusions (or the way he presented some of the facts).  IIRC, the debunkings back and forth changed very little of the actual content.  

I also did not find anything new in the letter, but it was a source for many that was a "one stop" document to read and share with others.  It got a lot of exposure too.

The church was well within their rights to hold a disciplinary counsel for Runnels and I was surprised it didn't happen sooner.

.

Edited April 20, 2016 by ALarson

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree.  There was not much incorrect or in error within his letter, but I didn't agree with many of his conclusions (or the way he presented some of the facts).  IIRC, the debunkings back and forth changed very little of the actual content.  

I also did not find anything new in the letter, but it was a source for many that was a "one stop" document to read and share with others.  It got a lot of exposure too.

The church was well within their rights to hold a disciplinary counsel for Runnels and I was surprised it didn't happen sooner.

.

Agreed.

The recording makes the leaders look bad, though.  I mean, I guess they did it to themselves.  We're not about treating people with unfeeling and coldness, at least that's not the Church I know.  I don't care how past this they were, they certainly did not have concern for him. 

I mean to be fair he didnt' show concern for them either.  But I expected more from them.  I always thought the high council was divided in half with one half acting as prosecutors if you will and the other half as defenders.  Or do they just split them in half and the men sit there in silence while two statements are made by each party?  Ah well. 

[bluebell]

6 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.

 

I thought that Jeremy implied he wasn't able to use an interpreter after the meeting was over.  Am i confused on that?

[bluebell]

9 hours 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 been with Jeremy bringing in his own interpreter.

Thanks for the link.  It's good to know that an interpreter was provided and that the stake president was not at fault.  It's too bad that Runnel keeps providing evidence of just how much you can't really trust his version of things.

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I thought that Jeremy implied he wasn't able to use an interpreter after the meeting was over.  Am i confused on that?

I would like to know this too.  Was he just silent on the matter?

If he said nothing, he should have at least clarified that an interpreter ended up being provided.

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Agreed.

The recording makes the leaders look bad, though.  I mean, I guess they did it to themselves.  We're not about treating people with unfeeling and coldness, at least that's not the Church I know.  I don't care how past this they were, they certainly did not have concern for him. 

I mean to be fair he didnt' show concern for them either.  But I expected more from them.  I always thought the high council was divided in half with one half acting as prosecutors if you will and the other half as defenders.  Or do they just split them in half and the men sit there in silence while two statements are made by each party?  Ah well. 

I haven't listened to the recording and probably won't get a chance to until later.  If what you say is accurate, that's unfortunate.

[JulieM]

9 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 don't see any need for apologies.  I'd still defend anyone's right to request an interpreter who had problems hearing and would not question how bad their hearing loss is.  The request was initially denied and many didn't agree with that (but most here also made clear that we didn't know why it was denied).  

I'm glad an interpreter was there after all and I wish that Jeremy had stated that one was.

 

Edited April 20, 2016 by JulieM

[smac97]

On 4/20/2016 at 7:08 AM, stemelbow said:

I respect him for his choice and his resolve.  I too was worried as it started and how defiant he was.  Then I realized the relationship between he and the SP were already strained.  The SP didn't seem at all interested in what Jeremy was saying.  He didn't seem at all concerned about Jeremy.  To be fair it is true Jeremy didn't seem at all concerned about the SP or anyone else either.  It was cold and it was adorable the way he went about it.  It really had nothing to do with the questions he asked, at least from the Church's point of view, it had to do with the conclusions he's drawn.  That's all the SP was focused on were his conclusions.  Questions are endless about most things.  I don't know how Jeremy doesn't realize that. 

I suspect Mr. Runnels does "realize that."  He was posturing, that's all.  He was generating media content for his money-making venture.  I do not think he attended the disciplinary council in a state of humility or conciliation, or with a desire to discern the will of God.  I think he was determined to turn it into a dog and pony show.

-Smac

Edited April 20, 2016 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

9 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.

Help me understand the thinking here: 

• Jeremy asks for an interpreter.
• Stake President initially denies request.
• Mr. Runnels posts his stake President's denial on FB. 
• Stake President changed his mind and provided an interpreter.
• Jeremy's friends (or someone) let's everyone know that Jeremy's interpreter is denied entrance to the court (implying no interpreter was provided)

Based on the above evidence, many people state there is no good reason to deny Jeremy an interpreter and the stake president made a mistake in denying him one. (Note it appears that the stake president agrees with this assessment since after initially denying his request, he changes his mind and provides an interpreter).

On the other side, many people came on here to state that an interpreter was not necessary and there could be any number of good reasons for not providing him one.

What exactly is it that people should apologize for? Thinking the SP made a mistake by not providing an interpreter? Certainly not. The Stake President appears to have made the same conclusion. If someone cast judgement on the SP, certainly an apology would be in order.

[flameburns623]

Jeremy Runnells was clearly as surprised as anyone when he learned the Stake President had made provision for a 'Terp.

Runnells only said, following the hearing, that his interpreter was turned away. 

Which is true. 

But the omission of the fact that an interpreter WAS provided grouses me.

He didn't lie, but he certainly failed to render fair-minded disclosure. He let stand an impression, which HE had created prior to the Bishop's Court.

Edited April 20, 2016 by flameburns623

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

Jeremy Runnells was clearly as surprised as anyone when he learned the Stake President had made provision fot a 'Terp.

Runnells only said, following the hearing, that his interpreter was turned away. 

Which is true. 

But the omission of the fact that an interpreter WAS provided grouses me.

He didn't lie, but he certainly failed to render fair-minded disclosure. He let stand an impression, which HE had created prior to the Bishop's Court.

That rubs me the wrong way too, Jeremy certainly should have stated that one was provided.  He's guilty in a small way, of what he's accusing the church to be...silent.  

[JulieM]

6 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

Jeremy Runnells was clearly as surprised as anyone when he learned the Stake President had made provision fot a 'Terp.

Runnells only said, following the hearing, that his interpreter was turned away. 

Which is true. 

But the omission of the fact that an interpreter WAS provided grouses me.

He didn't lie, but he certainly failed to render fair-minded disclosure. He let stand an impression, which HE had created prior to the Bishop's Court.

I agree 100%.

He should apologize for misleading and should make it right.

However, there is no need for 2 dozen posters here to apologize for that.

 

[rockpond]

53 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Agreed.

The recording makes the leaders look bad, though.  I mean, I guess they did it to themselves.  We're not about treating people with unfeeling and coldness, at least that's not the Church I know.  I don't care how past this they were, they certainly did not have concern for him. 

I mean to be fair he didnt' show concern for them either.  But I expected more from them.  I always thought the high council was divided in half with one half acting as prosecutors if you will and the other half as defenders.  Or do they just split them in half and the men sit there in silence while two statements are made by each party?  Ah well. 

I agree that the recording makes the leaders look bad.  Handbook 1 does quote D&C 102:17 in saying that half of the high councilors are to stand up on behalf of the accused.  While that didn't seem to happen, Jeremy also didn't let the disciplinary council run its course.  So we don't know what would have occurred had he proceeded.

Handbook 1 also doesn't make any provision for the accused to ask questions of the council.  (The council is to ask questions of the accused, AFTER the accused makes their statement.  Jeremy didn't let the council get that far so we don't know how those questions might have been asked.)

So, even though the SP was following procedure in not answering questions from Jeremy, I think that's what makes the leaders look bad.

There is the issue of witnesses... we don't know if the SP followed procedure in inviting Jeremy to bring in witnesses.  It appears that Jeremy did not bring any and he did not let the council proceed to the point where they'd call them into the council anyway.

[Tacenda]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I agree that the recording makes the leaders look bad.  Handbook 1 does quote D&C 102:17 in saying that half of the high councilors are to stand up on behalf of the accused.  While that didn't seem to happen, Jeremy also didn't let the disciplinary council run its course.  So we don't know what would have occurred had he proceeded.

Handbook 1 also doesn't make any provision for the accused to ask questions of the council.  (The council is to ask questions of the accused, AFTER the accused makes their statement.  Jeremy didn't let the council get that far so we don't know how those questions might have been asked.)

So, even though the SP was following procedure in not answering questions from Jeremy, I think that's what makes the leaders look bad.

There is the issue of witnesses... we don't know if the SP followed procedure in inviting Jeremy to bring in witnesses.  It appears that Jeremy did not bring any and he did not let the council proceed to the point where they'd call them into the council anyway.

I don't know much about these DC's, is it okay for Jeremy to ex himself like that.  Or can they turn out around and ex him?  Probably in the past this was the case, but now not so much, because of people hiring attorneys when they wish to resign instead of being ex'd.  

It's my feeling that Jeremy didn't let it get to the point of the church ex'g him and he quickly resigned beforehand.  Curious to know what would have happened in the end had he not though.  

[juliann]

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

 

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.

 

This is one of those "I don't know whether to laugh or cry" moments. It is impossible to listen to him try to goad the SP into the dog and pony show he so clearly craves and come to this conclusion. How many times must the SP say they weren't going to debate does it take to realize they aren't going to debate?? I'm surprised he didn't ask the men to raise their hands if they had fasted today so he could declare them unfit for the council when they refused to play. "I know, guys! Raise your hands if...."  was by far the most comical moment in that sad display. It should have been followed by, "OK boys, now wash those naughty hands and I'll pass out snacks."

BTW, it is highly unlikely these guys didn't know they were being recorded and that they were trying to be as economical with words as possible. 

[RevTestament]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

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"

My guess is his "interpreter" was supposed to be the scapegoat for this video, but the SP eliminated that contingency.

[bluebell]

36 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

Runnells only said, following the hearing, that his interpreter was turned away. 

The question for me, on this issue, is why did Runnells say that his interpreter was turned away following the DC?  I mean, that's true but, given that he was provided an interpreter, it's also completely irrelevant.

There is only one reason that i can think of for Runnells to have done that-he wanted to make the church look bad.  Can anyone else think of any other possible valid reasons?  (Sincere question)

[Tacenda]

Just now, juliann said:

This is one of those "I don't know whether to laugh or cry" moments. It is impossible to listen to him try to goad the SP into the dog and pony show he so clearly craves and come to this conclusion. How many times must the SP say they weren't going to debate does it take to realize they aren't going to debate?? I'm surprised he didn't ask the men to raise their hands if they had fasted today so he could declare them unfit for the council when they refused to play. "I know, guys! Raise your hands if...."  was by far the most comical moment in that sad display. It should have been followed by, "OK boys, now wash those naughty hands and I'll pass out snacks."

BTW, it is highly unlikely these guys didn't know they were being recorded and that they were trying to be as economical with words as possible. 

I wrote my post late or early this morning.  So didn't realize they probably didn't respond either way.  Since it was mandated that there would be no answers to his questions.  So these men very well could have read the essays or CES letter, they just weren't going to give any answers of any kind.

[juliann]

21 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 

So, even though the SP was following procedure in not answering questions from Jeremy, I think that's what makes the leaders look bad.

 

That only works if Runnells had looked good. 

[bluebell]

10 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 don't think anyone needs to apologize for thinking the SP didn't provide an interpreter.  They believed what Runnells implied but the evidence seems to show that that implication was a lie.  That's all on Runnells.

We all come down on the wrong side of issues like this sometimes, where we put more trust in someone than it turns out they ultimately deserved.  That's not a wrongdoing on our end though.

[Calm]

Rico, you read way too much into someone's writings and thus misinterpret and get facts wrong based as far as I can see on how you would like the facts to be.

I have never in any way suggested that having offered to provide answers to questions, the CES director had no obligation to answer him simply because Runnells informed him when he wrote that he was no longer a believer in the LDS faith.  Or even because Runnells sent 70 page list instead of a few questions at a time as was probably expected (as stated by Runnells).

And it was Runnells' grandfather, not the CES director, that approached Runnells and offered his friend's services after the granfather asked his friend to help.  Which also does not change an obligation to attempt answer his questions or at least explainwhy he wasn't.

I would not be the least bit surprised if the CES director, after receiving the list of questions, in doing research came across the conversations Runnells was having about the letter on the internet and decided on reading his comments that Runnells was not looking for answers in the way he originally understood Runnells to be doing so from his grandfather's communication and therefore decided that attempting to persuade Runnells to look at history and doctrine differently was fruitless (as we have pretty much seen in his responses to the answers provided by FM).  Even that (if that is what happened) imo does not remove an obligation to let Runnells know his decision not to engage, if he did not do so, even if Runnells himself excuses him as he does (I am writing here as if Runnells is telling the whole story and doing so accurately, an assumption I have strong doubts about given his history of misrepresentation, including imo some intentional).

Btw, in your apparent defence of Runnells, do you also support his conclusions about Christianity in general given iirc he states he applied the same methodology that he used to conclude Mormonism is a fraud to conclude that Christianity is a fraud as well?

[churchistrue]

deleted

 

 

Edited April 20, 2016 by churchistrue

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I don't think anyone needs to apologize for thinking the SP didn't provide an interpreter.  They believed what Runnells implied but the evidence seems to show that that implication was a lie.  That's all on Runnells.

We all come down on the wrong side of issues like this sometimes, where we put more trust in someone than it turns out they ultimately deserved.  That's not a wrongdoing on our end though.

Bluebell, the SP didn't at first.  It didn't matter that he changes his mind, as far as our previous arguing was concerned.  Because at the time, all we had to go on was that Jeremy said there wouldn't be an interpreter.  Which proves to be correct.  In the recorded DC, Jeremy shows surprise that one is provided, and the SP could have at that very moment said that there always was going to be one, he didn't refute that he told Jeremy that one wasn't going to be provided.  So our back and forths over this matter should stick within the time frame of it being said he wasn't going to be provided one.