Jeremy Runnells Excommunicated

[stemelbow]

15 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?

Not at all.  The focus on the discipline from the SP was not the questions, but his conclusions.  Granted, it doesn't appear the SP could have or was willing to try to answer any of his questions even before this council.  But, that was certainly not the issue the SP raised at all. 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

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.

Probably true.  If he said all the things the SP quoted, wich were his conclusions, in a casual conversation with his home teacher, or someone, he probably wouldn't have been disciplined.  But it does appear the SP was focusing solely on conclusions Jeremy has drawn.  His motive might have been because Jeremy has helped lead people out, but the avenue to excommunicate was because of apostasy, which was evident in his conclusions. 

[rongo]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

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.

And that's all that was needed for a "conviction." Whether stated or not, the scope of the DC only needed to center on the apostate behavior. The "answering his questions" phase occurred before the DC; the DC isn't the venue to go through all of his points in the CES Letter. It's simply considering the evidence and charges of apostate behavior.

[juliann]

7 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?

Unfortunately, there is now a transcript. That doesn't point out that tired trope well at all.    http://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/jeremy-runnells-excommunication-of-the-lds-church-transcript/

Quote

9:18 Ivins: Okay, we’ve had an opening prayer, um, Jeremy we have convened tonight to perform a disciplinary council in your behalf the result of which includes the possibility of no action, formal probation, disfellowshipment or excommunication. The reason for this council is that you are reported to be in apostasy and that you have repeatedly acted in clear, open and deliberate public opposition to the church or it’s leaders. You have among other things, published materials and have participated in interviews which have attempted to discredit the church, publicly expressed your view that the scriptures are fraudulent, and expressed opposition to church leaders including the prophet Joseph Smith. The definition of apostasy as defined in the handbook is: repeatedly act in clear, open, deliberate public opposition to the church or its leaders.

I don't see one mention of "asking questions!" in this or the excerpts the SP read. In fact, "asking questions!" only comes up from guess who. Ivins adds even more detail,

Quote

Ivins: Now, this is my words here. Jeremy, I’ve offered to have written dialogue with you and I outlined certain guidelines for you to respect during our discussions. Including your agreeing to keep our discussions confidential for the time that we would communicate with each other. You chose not to participate in these discussions. You and any person are welcome to your own conclusions and views but when you create your own organization and begin to solicit others to your point of view, seeking to oppose the foundational doctrines of the church you cross a boundary where in you support and participate in direct opposition to the church. It is my opinion that you have repeatedly acted in clear and open deliberate public opposition to the church and its leaders. I want to share my testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I know the gospel of Jesus Christ is true. That we’re led by a modern day prophet. That through direct revelation we’re guided and directed in these latter days. That families can be eternal and we can find joy and happiness living gospel principles that are taught to us by prophets, seers and revelators. And I bear that testimony in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen. (amens) Okay, you have now 45 minutes to make a statement.

Hm, so Ivins did offer to have written dialogue. Runnells declined. And we know why! Oh, wait. We don't. 

Quote

Jeremy: K, um, my experience with President Ivins unfortunately the past year and a half, is that he has never answered my questions. Not a single question.

So Ivins was very willing to have written dialogue in which he would have had an opportunity to "answer the questions!"  But Runnells wouldn't participate in this dialogue.

 

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

And that's all that was needed for a "conviction." Whether stated or not, the scope of the DC only needed to center on the apostate behavior. The "answering his questions" phase occurred before the DC; the DC isn't the venue to go through all of his points in the CES Letter. It's simply considering the evidence and charges of apostate behavior.

Agreed.  From what I've heard though, there wasn't much of an "answering of questions" phase before the disciplinary counsel.  Other than that I agree with what you stated above.  

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

Unfortunately, there is now a transcript. That doesn't point out that tired trope well at all.    http://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/jeremy-runnells-excommunication-of-the-lds-church-transcript/

I don't see one mention of "asking questions!" in this or the excerpts the SP read. In fact, "asking questions!" only comes up from guess who. Ivins adds even more detail,

Hm, so Ivins did offer to have written dialogue. Runnells declined. And we know why! Oh, wait. We don't. 

So Ivins was very willing to have written dialogue in which he would have had an opportunity to "answer the questions!"  But Runnells wouldn't participate in this dialogue.

 

I listened and missed this little bit.  That's right.  The SP did offer and Jeremy declined.  It was odd then, to see Jeremy go on about the SP not answering his questions when asked. 

[juliann]

My favorite moments,

Quote

 

31:40 Um, let me look at my notes real quick. I was hoping for a dialogue tonight. I was hoping to be able to ask my questions and get answers but it’s obvious that I’m not going to get anything tonight. I guess it’s not a real trial. It’s not a real. Like, as far as I’m concerned this is a kangaroo court. As far as I’m concerned, I mean you guys are not interested in helping me. I mean it’s very disturbing. How many minutes do I have left?

Ivins: thirty.

 

Quote

   Out of curiosity, by a show of hands, how many of you have read the church’s essays? Nobody here? Okay, um. By the show of hands, how many of you have read the CES letter? Nobody here tonight has read the CES letter? Wow. And by the show of hands, has president Ivins prepared you tonight for this council by reading the CES letter carefully?

 

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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.

That's what i mean.  It's not that he came to different conclusions, but that he came to one very serious conclusion.

  The conclusion he came to is that the church is a fraud and that he needed to publicly teach people that.

[cdowis]

38 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

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

You and I live on different planets, so help me understand.  These are a listing of some of his activities that is found on his web page.

• 3 hour Mormon Stories interview. (Thank you, John!)
• Spanish translation of CES Letter (Thank you, David!)

Now you say he had questions, but what exactly was the purpose in taking these questions public?  The interview with Dehlin, was he expecting that Dehlin would furnish him the answers.

What was the purpose of translating his materials in Spanish?  Was he hoping that the answers would come from someone who only spoke Spanish?  Why does he plan to translate this into multiple languages -- perhaps someone in Japan has the answers?

The issue is obviously NOT "having questions", but using those questions for a systematic attempt to discredit and destroy the church, IN PUBLIC.  He is taking, what should be personal issues and questions, and making them public, and that is sufficient, on my planet, to excommunicate him.

Now, please communicate with us from your planet where such things are allowed.  

Edited April 20, 2016 by cdowis

[juliann]

All I’m doing is asking. I went through official channels to seek answers to my doubts. And this was after a year of dealing with unofficial Mormon apologists. Fair Mormon and all these guys who are no more legitimate or official than the crazy high priest guy that everybody rolls their eyes to in Sunday school. I was tired of them.

So he was " tired" of those answers. BTW, FairMormon's conference is written up in Church News every year. At least two FM speaker videos were put on LDS.org. But that isn't legitimate enough. Written dialogue with his SP isn't enough.  It's Pres. Monson or bust. 

[Duncan]

49 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?

what, he couldn't go to anyone else that could answer his questions? I do it all the time!!! sometimes you get answers, or the ones you want, and sometimes you don't but that's life

One trick pony if he went just to the CES man or his grandpa, try others!

[rongo]

29 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Agreed.  From what I've heard though, there wasn't much of an "answering of questions" phase before the disciplinary counsel.  Other than that I agree with what you stated above.  

According to Runnels. He sounds as reliable at accurately and fairly representing his experience with his stake president and bishop as Bruce Holt's representation of his experience with his priesthood leaders and area authority. 

Part of the stock narrative. "They just shrug and won't answer my questions."

[ALarson]

32 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I listened and missed this little bit.  That's right.  The SP did offer and Jeremy declined.  It was odd then, to see Jeremy go on about the SP not answering his questions when asked. 

Did Runnells actually ask any questions?   (I just keep hearing that he received no answers.)

I do wonder why he would have had to keep any answers confidential (written responses).  If the SP had answers, it seems they could have helped others with question too, so what harm would there be in letting others read the answers?

And, why only agree to written communication and not try to talk about the questions in person and give help and answers in return?  Maybe the SP desired a record to be kept.

Edited April 20, 2016 by ALarson

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

According to Runnels. He sounds as reliable at accurately and fairly representing his experience with his stake president and bishop as Bruce Holt's representation of his experience with his priesthood leaders and area authority. 

Part of the stock narrative. "They just shrug and won't answer my questions."

Thus, just as I said, there was not much of an "answering of questions" phase before the disciplinary counsel.  I believe both sides agree on that.

[rongo]

How do you know? Your assumptions would have to be based on Jeremy Runnels.

[ALarson]

Just now, rongo said:

How do you know? Your assumptions would have to be based on Jeremy Runnels.

I thought the SP stated that he'd offered to answer questions in writing, but Runnells declined. (Or was that longer ago than just prior to the disciplinary counsel that he was referring to?). 

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

There's nothing that says he can't hand over a resignation letter.  But, there is nothing stopping them from excommunicating him.  Since they were already through much of the DC, I would expect that they followed procedure, deliberated, made a decision, and may be sending that decision to Jeremy in a letter.  Or maybe they just accepted his resignation and went home.

If Jeremy ever wanted to be baptized again, it's an easier process if he was excommunicated.  If they process it as a resignation, it requires FP approval for him to get re-baptized (not so for excommunication).

Good to know, thanks Rockpond!

[stemelbow]

Ivins:  Now, this is my words here. Jeremy, I’ve offered to have written dialogue with you and I outlined certain guidelines for you to respect during our discussions. Including your agreeing to keep our discussions confidential for the time that we would communicate with each other. You chose not to participate in these discussions.

When I first listened to this this morning, I thought he had suggested when offered Jeremy declined because he was unwilling to keep it confidential.  But I don't know that's what is meant here.  It still could be.  But whatever the case, Jeremy thought the SP was unwilling or unable to answer his questions, and the SP thought Jeremy declined to engage in written dialogue. 

[rongo]

If anything, in writing is more thorough, since it allows each party to write and respond at length, check sources and resources, etc. A written dialogue would have been far superior in that regard --- if Runnels were sincere about wanting "dialogue" and discussing his questions.

Reminds me of an anti-Mormon ministry that wanted to debate me in public. Even though I declined, they began promoting a "public debate with a Mormon bishop!" Their MO was Youtube clips, and I offered to debate them in writing. They declined, because they were only interested in sensationalism, publicity, and edited clips (which they did all the time). A written format, over time, is the antithesis of the soundbites they were seeking. A written format, over time, is actually the best way to answer sincere, involved questions.

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Ivins:  Now, this is my words here. Jeremy, I’ve offered to have written dialogue with you and I outlined certain guidelines for you to respect during our discussions. Including your agreeing to keep our discussions confidential for the time that we would communicate with each other. You chose not to participate in these discussions.

I wonder what the other "certain guidelines" were?  

I still see no problem discussing the answers with others if they can help other members who have some of the same questions that Runnells has.  Why would those answers have to be kept confidential?  Even if given in writing, they could help others.

14 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

When I first listened to this this morning, I thought he had suggested when offered Jeremy declined because he was unwilling to keep it confidential.  But I don't know that's what is meant here.  It still could be.  But whatever the case, Jeremy thought the SP was unwilling or unable to answer his questions, and the SP thought Jeremy declined to engage in written dialogue. 

There does seem to be some confusion as to what really happened regarding that.

.

Edited April 20, 2016 by ALarson

[churchistrue]

The court was a mess.  The SP was not kind to him.  It didn't seem to follow protocol, ie having a HC assigned to defend Jeremy.  The SP wouldn't engage him at all, even on simple item like reading the rest of the statement of apostasy.  I'm guessing he had instructions from Salt Lake how to handle it.  But I understand why.  Jeremy is 1 in 15 million level apostate.  He has literally dedicated his life to embarrassing the church, damaging testimonies, and taking people away from the church.  He set up an organization, and is taking help from the most talented and motivated Exmo's to refine his message, develop his website, and do internet marketing.  He's the poster boy Anti-Mormon.  He mocks and ridicules the church.  Everyone knew he was going to record or somehow produce a transcript of the court and use it to embarrass the church as much as possible.  It's too bad this is the model some people are seeing on how a church court works, because I think this is very, very rare that it would go down like this.  Jeremy's a good guy that got involved with the wrong crowd.  They are using him for their purpose, but he seems to enjoy it.

 

 

[rongo]

Just now, ALarson said:

I wonder what the other "certain guidelines" were?  

I still see no problem discussing the answers with others if they can help other members who have some of the same questions that Runnells has.  Why would those answers have to be kept confidential?

It seems to me to limit Runnels to the sincere and methodical answering of his questions, away from the social media or apostate celebrity spotlight. Not to "keep the poison from spreading," as has been insinuated. 

The more that comes to light, the more that his stake president impresses me. He tried to really help Runnels ---- but not in a way that would allow Runnels to try to capitalize on it. 

[juliann]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Did Runnells actually ask any questions?   (I just keep hearing that he received no answers.)

I do wonder why he would have had to keep any answers confidential (written responses).  If the SP had answers, it seems they could have helped others with question too, so what harm would there be in letting others read the answers?

And, why only agree to written communication and not try to talk about the questions in person and give help and answers in return?  Maybe the SP desired a record to be kept.

I really feel for this SP. Public shaming is the stock in trade of these agitators, even as they decry it coming from others. But what I think I am seeing is growing awareness from local leaders (that I don't always see from the top (as in that bungled release of the gay policy.) The SP would have been crazy to not do everything in writing....not to mention having to listen to what we heard on that video in his spare time if he didn't.  Jeremy would have lost his "answer my questions!" trope had he taken up the SP's offer so that is no mystery. And yes, it would have been to the SP's benefit to insist it not be private. Runnells is only interested in submitting test questions (he should just make it multiple choice to save everybody time.) But I wonder if a SP, who will always have a concern for a member, could have kept it so impersonal. And he knows he it will be published. This is an unpaid private person who has seen them try to personally destroy other leaders. 

So what does happen when local leaders become more savvy? I don't think the agitators have an infinite box of tricks. 

 

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I thought the SP stated that he'd offered to answer questions in writing, but Runnells declined. (Or was that longer ago than just prior to the disciplinary counsel that he was referring to?). 

I believe he was referring to discussion that he and Runnells had had a while ago, before the DC was convened.  

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, juliann said:

I really feel for this SP. Public shaming is the stock in trade of these agitators, even as they decry it coming from others. But what I think I am seeing is growing awareness from local leaders (that I don't always see from the top (as in that bungled release of the gay policy.) The SP would have been crazy to not do everything in writing....not to mention having to listen to what we heard on that video in his spare time if he didn't.  Jeremy would have lost his "answer my questions!" trope had he taken up the SP's offer so that is no mystery. And yes, it would have been to the SP's benefit to insist it not be private. Runnells is only interested in submitting test questions (he should just make it multiple choice to save everybody time.) But I wonder if a SP, who will always have a concern for a member, could have kept it so impersonal. And he knows he it will be published. This is an unpaid private person who has seen them try to personally destroy other leaders. 

So what does happen when local leaders become more savvy? I don't think the agitators have an infinite box of tricks. 

 

Yes, I agree with all you stated above.  I do feel bad for this SP.  What a horrible position to be in and I'm sure he doesn't want all the publicity and his name out there.  He's criticized no matter what he does, too.

I honestly believe that Runnells knew he wouldn't get his questions answered (not in a manner he wanted at least).  And now he can point at it and say that no one would answer his questions.