Jeremy Runnells Excommunicated

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I think it is important when you are positioning yourself as the champion of truth to be completely transparent and above-board.

 

2 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Bluebell--1

Consiglieri--0

Yes, to both posts.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Bluebell--1

Consiglieri--0

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

CH1 (church policy) prohibits a person avoiding excommunication by resigning. The handbook instructs to hold a disciplinary council even if a resignation is received, if there is a discipline-able offense.

The Handbook used to say that but now it says the following:
"A request for name removal should be acted upon whether or not priesthood leaders suspect or have evidence of transgression. Any allegations or evidence of unresolved transgressions are noted on the Report of Administrative Action form so priesthood leaders may resolve such matters in the future if the individual applies for readmission into the Church." 

[rongo]

38 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I'd have to double check, but I believe that a Melchizedek Priesthood holder who is excommunicated does have to have First Presidency approval to be rebaptized.   The Stake Presidency and High Council gives their recommendation that the person be repatized, but I'm pretty sure it has to be formally approved by the First Presidency. 

Incorrect. Rebaptisms only require FP approval under certain specific circumstances. In general, if a MP holder is excommunicated for, say, adultery, but there are no aggravating circumstances, he can be rebaptized if that is the decision of the disciplinary council (i.e., stake president) upon full repentance and fulfilling the terms of his rebaptism --- without FP approval.

A MP must be tried at the stake level if there is a possibility that he could be excommunicated. I have had instances where the stake president instructed that a MP be tried at the ward level, which automatically limits the outcome to disfellowshipment at the most. CH1 states that if it emerges that excommunication might be necessary, the DC must be stopped and later convened at the stake level.

 

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The Handbook used to say that but now it says the following:
"A request for name removal should be acted upon whether or not priesthood leaders suspect or have evidence of transgression. Any allegations or evidence of unresolved transgressions are noted on the Report of Administrative Action form so priesthood leaders may resolve such matters in the future if the individual applies for readmission into the Church." 

I stand updated.  

That makes it more simple. In my experience, there isn't a flood of name removal requests. They're actually pretty rare --- at least in my stake. 

[USU78]

46 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Looks like it was written by someone other than Peterson, which I'm sure you knew. I'm just putting it out as an FYI for others who may miss that. 

Yup:  he posted an article written by somebody else, as he does nearly every day.

[JAHS]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

I stand updated.  

That makes it more simple. In my experience, there isn't a flood of name removal requests. They're actually pretty rare --- at least in my stake. 

It makes more sense to me too. If a person has removed their name from the church they certainly are not going to show up for a disciplinary court and it would be a waste of time for the stake leaders.  From the movie "The Rock": "Do you want me to kill him again?"

 

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

A MP must be tried at the stake level if there is a possibility that he could be excommunicated. I have had instances where the stake president instructed that a MP be tried at the ward level, which automatically limits the outcome to disfellowshipment at the most. CH1 states that if it emerges that excommunication might be necessary, the DC must be stopped and later convened at the stake level.

 

I have personal experience (thru a friend) of this happening in regards to a man who committed adultery over the course of 2 years and had been attending the temple the whole time (even served as a counselor in the bishopric).  He confessed, and even though such offenses would normally put excommunication in the running, the SP (after meeting with him and his wife) instructed the bishop to try him at the ward level.

[ALarson]

I just watched the youtube video (at least most of it...I kind of skipped to the end after awhile) of the disciplinary counsel.  

Did anyone else ever speak besides Runnells and the Stake President? (If so, I missed it.)

This is just unlike any type of church counsel I have been a part of (but it's been a few years, so maybe rules have changed).  But the High Counselors usually ask question (divided into the two groups of 6), and that's an important part of the proceedings (IMO).  From what I heard, all remained completely silent here though.

I tend to believe they were counting on this being recorded.  Maybe before it began the SP instructed the High Counselors not to speak? 

(I know that Runnells ended the court abruptly, so maybe some would have asked him some questions if it had proceeded like a normal counsel does.)

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I just watched the youtube video (at least most of it...I kind of skipped to the end after awhile) of the disciplinary counsel.  

Did anyone else ever speak besides Runnells and the Stake President? (If so, I missed it.)

This is just unlike any type of church counsel I have been a part of (but it's been a few years, so maybe rules have changed).  But the High Counselors usually ask question (divided into the two groups of 6), and that's an important part of the proceedings (IMO).  From what I heard, all remained completely silent here though.

I tend to believe they were counting on this being recorded.  Maybe before it began the SP instructed the High Counselors not to speak? 

(I know that Runnells ended the court abruptly, so maybe some would have asked him some questions if it had proceeded like a normal counsel does.)

That's what it looks like to me ---- and I think it was wise. 

Runnels played his resignation card without any other people providing fodder on a recording besides the SP and Runnels. They never got to the question phase, which would have been interesting. I think, if given the chance, the HC questions would have centered around his feelings towards the Church, repentance (if any), etc. I don't think they would have pulled into the weeds (as Runnels wanted) discussing CES letter points.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

That's what it looks like to me ---- and I think it was wise. 

Runnels played his resignation card without any other people providing fodder on a recording besides the SP and Runnels. They never got to the question phase, which would have been interesting. I think, if given the chance, the HC questions would have centered around his feelings towards the Church, repentance (if any), etc. I don't think they would have pulled into the weeds (as Runnels wanted) discussing CES letter points.

Yes, it would have been interesting to hear any questions.  But, I agree that they would have been like the ones you mention above.

I would like to have been in the room after Runnells walked out.  They probably all looked at each other like "what the heck?"  But then, I'd imagine many were just relieved it was over.

[juliann]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

 

If I understand correctly, Jeremy told the crowd that the interpreter HE brought was turned away.  He did not disclose to the crowd that the SP had actually provided an interpreter.  That failure to disclose on Runnells' part is not good.

The irony is thick. That is exactly what he accuses the Church of doing....omitting vital information. 

[smac97]

On 4/20/2016 at 1:20 PM, ALarson said:

Yes, it would have been interesting to hear any questions.  But, I agree that they would have been like the ones you mention above.

I would like to have been in the room after Runnells walked out.  They probably all looked at each other like "what the heck?"  But then, I'd imagine many were just relieved it was over.

I'm glad I was not there.  I think it would be saddening to see someone rise up in a spirit of anger, pride and rebellion and cut himself off from the blessings of the Restored Gospel.  There was a time when Jeremy Runnels was "Brother Runnels."  Now he's not.  And by all appearances he appears to be going the other way, whole hog.

I think the introduction of lucre into one's opposition to the Church adds an entirely new dimension to the situation, a dimension that is immensely damaging to Mr. Runnels.  Consider 2 Nephi 27:15-16:

Quote

 15 But behold, it shall come to pass that the Lord God shall say unto him to whom he shall deliver the book: Take these words which are not sealed and deliver them to another, that he may show them unto the learned, saying: Read this, I pray thee. And the learned shall say: Bring hither the book, and I will read them.

 16 And now, because of the glory of the world and to get gain will they say this, and not for the glory of God.

And 2 Nephi 26:28-29:

Quote

 28 Behold, hath the Lord commanded any that they should not partake of his goodness? Behold I say unto you, Nay; but all men are privileged the one like unto the other, and none are forbidden.

 29 He commandeth that there shall be no priestcrafts; for, behold, priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion.

And 1 Nephi 22:23:

Quote

 23 For the time speedily shall come that all churches which are built up to get gain, and all those who are built up to get power over the flesh, and those who are built up to become popular in the eyes of the world, and those who seek the lusts of the flesh and the things of the world, and to do all manner of iniquity; yea, in fine, all those who belong to the kingdom of the devil are they who need fear, and tremble, and quake; they are those who must be brought low in the dust; they are those who must beconsumed as stubble; and this is according to the words of the prophet.

And 2 Nephi 26:20:

Quote

 20 And the Gentiles are lifted up in the pride of their eyes, and have stumbled, because of the greatness of their stumbling block, that they have built up many churches; nevertheless, they put down the power and miracles of God, and preach up unto themselves their own wisdom and their own learning, that they may get gain and grind upon the face of the poor.

And D&C 10:55-56:

Quote

 55 Therefore, whosoever belongeth to my church need notfear, for such shall inherit the kingdom of heaven.

 56 But it is they who do not fear me, neither keep my commandments but build up churches unto themselves to get gain, yea, and all those that do wickedly and build up the kingdom of the devil—yea, verily, verily, I say unto you, that it is they that I will disturb, and cause to tremble and shake to the center.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 14, 2019 by smac97

[ALarson]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm glad I was not there.  I think it would be saddening to see someone rise up in a spirit and anger, pride and rebellion and cut himself off from the blessings of the Restored Gospel.  

Did you watch or listen to the video?  I thought both Runnells and the Stake President were composed and I didn't see anyone rising up in "spirit and anger" from either side.  There was maybe some frustrations regarding questions not being allowed (which I understood)..  I think what Runnells did (resigning) was the best thing for him and hopefully he'll move on now.  

I did hear that donations are up right now (just anectodal, so don't CFR me please) and I have seen posts on other boards saying that they were donating money to him as they watched the video.  I can't imagine Runnells can make a living off of this though, and I'm amazed he's tried.

.

Edited April 20, 2016 by ALarson

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

CH1 (church policy) prohibits a person avoiding excommunication by resigning. The handbook instructs to hold a disciplinary council even if a resignation is received, if there is a discipline-able offense.

Okay... I didn't recall that part.  I thought that they just had to annotate the transgressions so that they could be dealt with if the individual ever sought re-baptism.

[smac97]

On 4/20/2016 at 0:54 PM, ALarson said:

Did you watch or listen to the video?  I thought both Runnells and the Stake President were composed and I didn't see anyone rising up in "spirit and anger" from either side.  

I only listened to a few minutes of it.  Mr. Runnels sounded defiant and angry.  He was plainly disrespectful to the stake president.

Quote

There was maybe some frustrations regarding questions not being allowed (which I understood)..  I think what Runnells did (resigning) was the best thing for him and hopefully he'll move on now.  

I did hear that donations are up right now (just anectodal, so don't CFR me please) and I have seen posts on other boards saying that they were donating money to him as they watched the video.  I can't imagine Runnells can make a living off of this though, and I'm amazed he's tried.

Whether he succeeds or fails at making money by attacking the Church of Christ is not really the point.  That he is attempting to do so is the disturbing part.  This seems like a scarily efficient means of alienating oneself from God.  We are told in 2 Nephi 26:11: "For the Spirit of the Lord will not always strive with man. And when the Spirit ceaseth to strive with man then cometh speedy destruction, and this grieveth my soul."  And in D&C 1:33: "And he that repents not, from him shall be taken even the light which he has received; for my Spirit shall not always strive with man, saith the Lord of Hosts."

I hope Mr. Runnels has a change of heart, and that some day in the future we can once again welcome him as "Brother Runnels."

Thanks,

-Smac

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

The irony is thick. That is exactly what he accuses the Church of doing....omitting vital information. 

Ironic or not, the fact that Jeremy may have omitted vital information does not mean the Church has not omitted vital information.

The apologists are now free to focus on the tertiary issue of the presence of the interpreter as an excuse for ignoring the elephant in the living room; that the LDS Church would rather excommunicate a member with questions than even attempt to answer them.

Carry on.

[Russell C McGregor]

2 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Ironic or not, the fact that Jeremy may have omitted vital information does not mean the Church has not omitted vital information.

The apologists are now free to focus on the tertiary issue of the presence of the interpreter as an excuse for ignoring the elephant in the living room; that the LDS Church would rather excommunicate a member with questions than even attempt to answer them.

Carry on.

False. Of course.

Mister Runnells wasn't excommunicated for having "questions," and you know it. He was excommunicated for proselytizing against the Church.

[juliann]

Well he certainly focused on the interpreter. But now it's a problem?  I really am trying to keep up! 

[consiglieri]

2 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

False. Of course.

Mister Runnells wasn't excommunicated for having "questions," and you know it. He was excommunicated for proselytizing against the Church.

False.  Of course.

Mister Runnells was excommunicated for publicly asking questions the Church didn't answer.

What happened in his disciplinary council illustrates that point pretty well.

Don't you think?

[rongo]

16 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

False.  Of course.

Mister Runnells was excommunicated for publicly asking questions the Church didn't answer.

What happened in his disciplinary council illustrates that point pretty well.

Don't you think?

No. Not at all.

Had he simply listed questions, even in-depth, I don't think he would have been disciplined. It is his adversarial, antagonistic posture against the Church since the inauguration of the "CES Letter" (including publicly declaring Joseph Smith to be a fraud, and similar public declarations) that make him much more a candidate for discipline. Especially since he began trying to make a living off of it. 

Don't you think? 

ETA: I sat down with a member of our stake and his bishop and went through the CES Letter, answering his questions. He was delighted to be able to discuss issues with someone who knew about them and could expound and expand on them, but in many cases, he didn't find the answers to be satisfactory. What is the difference between him and Runnels? He actually has QUESTIONS. Even when we disagreed about the implications and ramifications of the questions and proposed answers, he didn't turn it into vicious attacks on the Church and past and present Church leaders. He continues to attend church and hold his fairly responsible calling.

He is in no danger whatsoever of being disciplined for "asking questions."

Can you see the difference?

Edited April 20, 2016 by rongo

[ALarson]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I only listened to a few minutes of it.  Mr. Runnels sounded defiant and angry.  He was plainly disrespectful to the stake president.

I thought they treated each other pretty equally with no more anger from one than from the other.  Same with being respectful.  I didn't feel much respect from either one of them and I'd imagine that has to do with any history between them.  We're just tuning in now  

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

The irony is thick. That is exactly what he accuses the Church of doing....omitting vital information. 

Yeah, that was bad.

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

False.  Of course.

Mister Runnells was excommunicated for publicly asking questions the Church didn't answer.

What happened in his disciplinary council illustrates that point pretty well.

Don't you think?

He was excommunicated because of the conclusions he came to, not the questions he asked. 

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

He was excommunicated because of the conclusions he came to, not the questions he asked. 

I don't know if it was either of those.  Members aren't excommunicated for asking questions or even coming to different conclusions.  I think he was ex'd for being so vocal and for trying to make money off of preaching publicly against the church.  At least that's my take on it.