Jeremy Runnells Excommunicated

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, rongo said:

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. 

I'm out of rep points or I'd give you one for this as I agree.  So I'm just re-posting it  

[juliann]

36 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.

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. 

It looks clear to me, he chose not to participate in those discussions. Those discussions had some rules and he chose not to participate in those discussions. The rules are not the discussion anymore than washing instructions are the garment. That Runnells didn't correct him or even respond to this makes it even clearer. He was offered the opportunity to "answer my questions!" and refused it.

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

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.

 

Yes.  When I have questions, I ask people I know personally or maybe ask publicly but I only ask a couple of questions at most each time and wait for the answers before asking any additional questions.  When one throws out dozens and dozens of questions on a variety of topics and demands answers, they are not really that serious about wanting the answers.

[JAHS]

25 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Yes.  When I have questions, I ask people I know personally or maybe ask publicly but I only ask a couple of questions at most each time and wait for the answers before asking any additional questions.  When one throws out dozens and dozens of questions on a variety of topics and demands answers, they are not really that serious about wanting the answers.

Right. Jeremy kept insisting they answer his questions right there in the DC. Did he really think they would answer his 82 page document of questions right there? It would have taken a week. Of course he didn't. He just wanted to be sure he got in as many jabs as he could against the church on the recording he made.

[Calm]

1 hour 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.

My opinion, the Stake President was aware of the conversations that Runnells was having about the CES letter on reddit and elsewhere and he believed the best and possibly only positive result would be if they had a one on one experience without a peanut gallery contributing their remarks to the conversation as well.

That and he didn't want his answers to become part of the CES material.  He wanted to engage with Runnells and not the world.

As far as written, given the detail Runnells goes into, written responses make the most sense, imo.

[USU78]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

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

I don't even think it was the conclusions.  One has a perfect right to believe any fool thing he wants to, and probably even discuss it privately, but one has no right as a member of the Church publicly to advocate for "the conclusions he came to."  Public advocacy is the issue with Runnells, as I understand it, not private questioning and doubting.

[Russell C McGregor]

2 hours 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.

 

Two words: Slam dunk.

The claim that Mister Runnells was excommunicated for "asking questions" has been completely refuted.

And it's all thanks to him, really.

 

[Guest]

On April 18, 2016 at 11:41 PM, smac97 said:

Here:

So what's with him purportedly having "excommunicated the LDS Church?"  We he excommunicated, or did he resign?  Was he disfellowshipped, and did he then resign?

Thanks,

-Smac

Why do so many who differ with the Church, just resign, instead of going public in an attempt to take as many as they can with them? My take, it is anger and a desire "to make all men missable like unto themselves". If I ever go it will be a private matter. 

[VideoGameJunkie]

My Bishop commented on Jeremy Runnells when I brought up his council. He said Jeremy excommunicated himself long ago in spirit, they just didn't have a council yet. Basically my Bishops message was you can already apostasize long before turning in a resignation letter or being excommunicated. 

[Rico]

Quote

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. 

Stemelbow,

Had the CES Director answered his questions, that would have done great FOR THE CHURCH.  Doing so, they could later wash hands and say "We answered his questions, but he won't listen."  But you never ever hear the CES Director coming up in public to refute Jeremy's claims that his questions were never addressed.  Why do you think this is so?

As most people here have boasted and bragged "his questions aren't new, they've been answered before!"  Well, if that's true, the mysterious CES Director could've just simply copied and pasted answers from here.  Answering Jeremy would've been peanuts.  Nobody need reinvent the wheel.  I have to keep repeating this until it sinks in: answering Jeremy is not a tough job.  Therefore, THAT is not the problem.

I'm not trying to defend Runnells here.  I'm sure somewhere down the road he expected his excommunication.  And the Church knew it would do so. The only question left is how he should go about it.  Same witht he Church. He needs no defense when the Church is clearly bungling its case.

What needs pointing out is the sheer stupidity of not engaging him when things were still manageable.  The Church clearly dropped its ball in several ways.  Not engaging him is the first truly stupid mistake.

Why?  Because later on the Stake Pres tried to OFFER A WRITTEN DIALOGUE with Jeremy during the church court proceedings.  The Stake Pres is now offering what should have been done by the CES Director long ago.  Isn't this belated offer a clear admission that they miserably FAILED the first time by not engaging?  

"Dear Horse, please come back... I'm closing the barn door now,"

CES instructors are quite proficient in their knowledge of church doctrine and history.  That is to be expected since they work full-time.  I would expect them to be the front-liners in receiving anti-Mormon criticism considering they work mostly in college envirnments.  They're like the marines.  To answer Jeremy should not be a big deal at all, especially when you have so many wise men in this website alone whose answers can easily copied and pasted, unless....

Unless some high-ranking Church official told the CES Director to "stand down" and not engage.  Other than this, it is hard to explain the mysterious CES Director's apparent silence.

The Mormon church has always had this policy not to engage apostates and their questions.  It's been that way since the Tanners in the 1960s.  Lower church officials are told not to debate, but only to focus on the apostates behavior.  They are not interested in rooting out the causes of the behavior.  Jeremy should know and expect that policy in his church court's proceedings.  That is specifically why he kept repeating about the non-response to his questions.  The recordings clearly show how the court council, by not debating the questions, were practicing this policy to the letter.  They were "standing down."

Thanks to Jeremy, the stupidity of this policy in the internet age is now revealed for all to see.  Just last month, this headline from the SLC Tribune:

"Apostle tells Mormon educators: Don’t duck tough questions — whether about polygamy, priesthood or other topics"
http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/3617356-155/apostle-tells-mormon-educators-dont-duck

Now why would an Apostle tell them not to to duck if they were not ducking at anything?  To me, this gives "Duck Dynasty" a new meaning...  Apparently, the time to tell the marines to stand down is over. It's time to engage.

And what about Joseph Smith's teaching that "contention is of the devil"? (3 Nephi 11:29)

Fuhgettaboutit...

[JAHS]

4 minutes ago, Rico said:

 Because later on the Stake Pres tried to OFFER A WRITTEN DIALOGUE with Jeremy during the church court proceedings.

Actually he offered the written dialogue long before the church court proceedings, but Jeremy didn't like the idea of keeping it confidential,which the SP asked for so,he declined the written dialogue.  .
Or am I not understanding what you mean here?

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, Rico said:

Stemelbow,

Had the CES Director answered his questions, that would have done great FOR THE CHURCH.  Doing so, they could later wash hands and say "We answered his questions, but he won't listen."  But you never ever hear the CES Director coming up in public to refute Jeremy's claims that his questions were never addressed.  Why do you think this is so?

As most people here have boasted and bragged "his questions aren't new, they've been answered before!"  Well, if that's true, the mysterious CES Director could've just simply copied and pasted answers from here.  Answering Jeremy would've been peanuts.  Nobody need reinvent the wheel.  I have to keep repeating this until it sinks in: answering Jeremy is not a tough job.  Therefore, THAT is not the problem.

I'm not trying to defend Runnells here.  I'm sure somewhere down the road he expected his excommunication.  And the Church knew it would do so. The only question left is how he should go about it.  Same witht he Church. He needs no defense when the Church is clearly bungling its case.

What needs pointing out is the sheer stupidity of not engaging him when things were still manageable.  The Church clearly dropped its ball in several ways.  Not engaging him is the first truly stupid mistake.

Why?  Because later on the Stake Pres tried to OFFER A WRITTEN DIALOGUE with Jeremy during the church court proceedings.  The Stake Pres is now offering what should have been done by the CES Director long ago.  Isn't this belated offer a clear admission that they miserably FAILED the first time by not engaging?  

"Dear Horse, please come back... I'm closing the barn door now,"

CES instructors are quite proficient in their knowledge of church doctrine and history.  That is to be expected since they work full-time.  I would expect them to be the front-liners in receiving anti-Mormon criticism considering they work mostly in college envirnments.  They're like the marines.  To answer Jeremy should not be a big deal at all, especially when you have so many wise men in this website alone whose answers can easily copied and pasted, unless....

Unless some high-ranking Church official told the CES Director to "stand down" and not engage.  Other than this, it is hard to explain the mysterious CES Director's apparent silence.

The Mormon church has always had this policy not to engage apostates and their questions.  It's been that way since the Tanners in the 1960s.  Lower church officials are told not to debate, but only to focus on the apostates behavior.  They are not interested in rooting out the causes of the behavior.  Jeremy should know and expect that policy in his church court's proceedings.  That is specifically why he kept repeating about the non-response to his questions.  The recordings clearly show how the court council, by not debating the questions, were practicing this policy to the letter.  They were "standing down."

Thanks to Jeremy, the stupidity of this policy in the internet age is now revealed for all to see.  Just last month, this headline from the SLC Tribune:

"Apostle tells Mormon educators: Don’t duck tough questions — whether about polygamy, priesthood or other topics"
http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/3617356-155/apostle-tells-mormon-educators-dont-duck

Now why would an Apostle tell them not to to duck if they were not ducking at anything?  To me, this gives "Duck Dynasty" a new meaning...  Apparently, the time to tell the marines to stand down is over. It's time to engage.

And what about Joseph Smith's teaching that "contention is of the devil"? (3 Nephi 11:29)

Fuhgettaboutit...

Does anyone even know who this CES person is? I would love to hear their side of the story

[Kevin Christensen]

9 hours ago, Rico said:

Stemelbow,

Had the CES Director answered his questions, that would have done great FOR THE CHURCH.  Doing so, they could later wash hands and say "We answered his questions, but he won't listen."  But you never ever hear the CES Director coming up in public to refute Jeremy's claims that his questions were never addressed.  Why do you think this is so?

As most people here have boasted and bragged "his questions aren't new, they've been answered before!"  Well, if that's true, the mysterious CES Director could've just simply copied and pasted answers from here.  Answering Jeremy would've been peanuts.  Nobody need reinvent the wheel.  I have to keep repeating this until it sinks in: answering Jeremy is not a tough job.  Therefore, THAT is not the problem.

I'm not trying to defend Runnells here.  I'm sure somewhere down the road he expected his excommunication.  And the Church knew it would do so. The only question left is how he should go about it.  Same witht he Church. He needs no defense when the Church is clearly bungling its case.

What needs pointing out is the sheer stupidity of not engaging him when things were still manageable.  The Church clearly dropped its ball in several ways.  Not engaging him is the first truly stupid mistake.

Why?  Because later on the Stake Pres tried to OFFER A WRITTEN DIALOGUE with Jeremy during the church court proceedings.  The Stake Pres is now offering what should have been done by the CES Director long ago.  Isn't this belated offer a clear admission that they miserably FAILED the first time by not engaging?  

"Dear Horse, please come back... I'm closing the barn door now,"

CES instructors are quite proficient in their knowledge of church doctrine and history.  That is to be expected since they work full-time.  I would expect them to be the front-liners in receiving anti-Mormon criticism considering they work mostly in college envirnments.  They're like the marines.  To answer Jeremy should not be a big deal at all, especially when you have so many wise men in this website alone whose answers can easily copied and pasted, unless....

Unless some high-ranking Church official told the CES Director to "stand down" and not engage.  Other than this, it is hard to explain the mysterious CES Director's apparent silence.

The Mormon church has always had this policy not to engage apostates and their questions.  It's been that way since the Tanners in the 1960s.  Lower church officials are told not to debate, but only to focus on the apostates behavior.  They are not interested in rooting out the causes of the behavior.  Jeremy should know and expect that policy in his church court's proceedings.  That is specifically why he kept repeating about the non-response to his questions.  The recordings clearly show how the court council, by not debating the questions, were practicing this policy to the letter.  They were "standing down."

Thanks to Jeremy, the stupidity of this policy in the internet age is now revealed for all to see.  Just last month, this headline from the SLC Tribune:

"Apostle tells Mormon educators: Don’t duck tough questions — whether about polygamy, priesthood or other topics"
http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/3617356-155/apostle-tells-mormon-educators-dont-duck

Now why would an Apostle tell them not to to duck if they were not ducking at anything?  To me, this gives "Duck Dynasty" a new meaning...  Apparently, the time to tell the marines to stand down is over. It's time to engage.

And what about Joseph Smith's teaching that "contention is of the devil"? (3 Nephi 11:29)

Fuhgettaboutit...

I noticed that while there is a scripture that says "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek and ye shall find, and to him that knocketh it shall be opened," (Matt 7:7) there is not one that says, "Blessed are they that sit like lumps, for they shall be spoonfed, and never caught of guard, and never ever disappointed by anyone."  It should also be evident that what a person seeks and where a person knocks affects the harvest.  One can seek "to make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate" (Isa. 29:21) or one can "receive the word with readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily whether those things were so." (Acts 17:11).  

Obviously, CES culture has long been disinclined to deal with controversial issues, for the most part (a tendency is not an absolute.. I have a book by a CES employee responding to The Godmakers at length and in detail).  However, CES is an appendage of the church, and is emphatically NOT the church, which is a covenant assembly. From where I stand, the church is not them, but us, all of us.  And within that assembly, there have always been people who have engaged and responded to critics.  John Welch, for instance wrote a good article on how Oliver Cowdery responded to Alexander Campbell.  Parley P. Pratt, B. H. Roberts, Francis Kirkham, Hugh Nibley, Richard L, Anderson, F. L. Stewart, Ian Barbour, Michael Quinn, and many others represent a longstanding tradition that really blossomed with FARMS, and continues with FAIRMormon and Interpreter and others.   I know about this simply because I got personally interested and sought and found this kind of stuff long before the Internet.  I just poked around libraries and bookstores and kept my eyes open.  And one of the things I noticed from the classes I took in Seminary and Institute and from attending church is that a title or an office or a testimony does not automatically bestow the gift of knowledge.  If I ask and seek, I can find out who really knows.  If I assume without asking that a seminary teacher who has taken some basic history classes and has a degree in Educational Administration or Marriage and Family Counseling or some such thing is some how operating under a Divine Guarantee to possess answers to whatever questions I can generate, I might just be setting myself up for disappointment.   One of the reasons that my faith has thrived and grown is that I've never made that assumption and never had those expectations.   

What is now obvious is that Jeremy Runnells had made up his mind long before he consulted FAIRMormon, and the CES Letter is a cut and paste compilation of anti-Mormon material for which he solicited approval and advice from the ex-Mormon community.  His motive was not to find answers but rather the most effective way of getting his wife and children to join him.

Quote

• The author of "A Letter to a CES Director" said on November 11, 2012

A person has to do their own convincing. Your dad is doing the research and is asking questions. Let it take its course. Hopefully you pointed him to the right resources (MormonThink.com, etc.)

• The author of "A Letter to a CES Director" said on November 15, 2012

I'm BIC, RM, Temple Married who left the church a few months ago (haven't resigned yet)....I have a TBM wife who still takes kids to church. I want to know the most effective way to save them from Mormonism so they won't have to go through what I went through.

 http://en.fairmormon.org/Question:_Did_FairMormon_do_%22more_to_destroy%22_the_testimony_of_the_author_of_the_%22Letter_to_a_CES_Director%22_than_any_%22anti-Mormon%22_source%3F

For instance, in another post, Runnells refers to his reading of The Mormon Murders, which of Hoffman books, is the most inaccurate and appalling, essentially written by remote control by the Tanners.  The church supposedly bought documents to conceal them, despite the obvious fact that the church published the Salamander letter in The Church News and published the Joseph Smith III blessing and gave it to the Reorganized Church.  

Many members of the church have made personal effort to respond to the CES Letter.  Including me.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited April 21, 2016 by Kevin Christensen
typo

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I noticed that while there is a scripture that says "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek and ye shall find, and to him that knocketh it shall be opened," (Matt 7:7) there is not one that says, "Blessed are they that sit like lumps, for they shall be spoonfed, and never caught of guard, and never ever disappointed by anyone."  It should also be evidence that what a person seeks and where a person knocks affects the harvest.  One can seek "to make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate" (Isa. 29:21) or one can "receive the word with readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily whether those things were so." (Acts 17:11).  

Obviously, CES culture has long been disinclined to deal with controversial issues, for the most part (a tendency is not an absolute.. I have a book by a CES employee responding to The Godmakers at length and in detail).  However, CES is an appendage of the church, and is emphatically NOT the church, which is a covenant assembly. From where I stand, the church is not them, but us, all of us.  And within that assembly, there have always been people who have engaged and responded to critics.  John Welch, for instance wrote a good article on how Oliver Cowdery responded to Alexander Campbell.  Parley P. Pratt, B. H. Roberts, Francis Kirkham, Hugh Nibley, Richard L, Anderson, F. L. Stewart, Ian Barbour, Michael Quinn, and many others represent a longstanding tradition that really blossomed with FARMS, and continues with FAIRMormon and Interpreter and others.   I know about this simply because I got personally interested and sought and found this kind of stuff long before the Internet.  I just poked around libraries and bookstores and kept my eyes open.  And one of the things I noticed from the classes I took in Seminary and Institute and from attending church is that a title or an office or a testimony does not automatically bestow the gift of knowledge.  If I ask and seek, I can find out who really knows.  If I assume without asking that a seminary teacher who has taken some basic history classes and has a degree in Educational Administration or Marriage and Family Counseling or some such thing is some how operating under a Divine Guarantee to possess answers to whatever questions I can generate, I might just be setting myself up for disappointment.   One of the reasons that my faith has thrived and grown is that I've never made that assumption and never had those expectations.   

What is now obvious is that Jeremy Runnells had made up his mind long before he consulted FAIRMormon, and the CES Letter is a cut and paste compilation of anti-Mormon material for which he solicited approval and advice from the ex-Mormon community.  His motive was not to find answers but rather the most effective way of getting his wife and children to join him.

 http://en.fairmormon.org/Question:_Did_FairMormon_do_%22more_to_destroy%22_the_testimony_of_the_author_of_the_%22Letter_to_a_CES_Director%22_than_any_%22anti-Mormon%22_source%3F

For instance, in another post, Runnells refers to his reading of The Mormon Murders, which of Hoffman books, is the most inaccurate and appalling, essentially written by remote control by the Tanners.  The church supposedly bought documents to conceal them, despite the obvious fact that the church published the Salamander letter in The Church News and published the Joseph Smith III blessing and gave it to the Reorganized Church.  

Many members of the church have made personal effort to respond to the CES Letter.  Including me.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

I think you are right about Jeremy.  I also think he thinks the church is a cult and will come in between he and his wife.  He may think he'll lose her and his children forever.  I think that may be a huge part of it.  He may feel that the church is an institution that controls.  He has probably seen evidence of families splitting up.  He really believes the church and apparently part of the Bible is false.  If you can put yourself in his shoes, can you see a little of where he's coming from?  

If you know a corporation isn't honest in all of it's dealings would you want people to know?  Even if it wanted to stop being non transparent and come clean with the past?  I feel like you and the others that are apologists and scholars were able to work through so much of this nontransparency through many years, but some people like Jeremy or myself had it handed to us on a silver platter or a smorgasbord.  It is a lot harder to digest that way vs. in small portions over time.  

But do believe you nailed it.  I do think he wants the world to know it.  But like himself he's shoving it down throats.  And when it comes down to it, like Pres. Hinckley stated, it's either true or it is false.  No middle ground and to a lot of people these answers or non answers appear to be middle ground thinking.  I respect what you and others here are trying to do but not everyone can look at things with such faithfulness.  Maybe they are too black and white in their thinking.  But hope that all this can be resolved one day.  If it's God's church then it must!

[stemelbow]

9 hours ago, Rico said:

Stemelbow,

Had the CES Director answered his questions, that would have done great FOR THE CHURCH.  Doing so, they could later wash hands and say "We answered his questions, but he won't listen."  But you never ever hear the CES Director coming up in public to refute Jeremy's claims that his questions were never addressed.  Why do you think this is so?

There are a few possibilities to this question.  One being the CES director didn't feel he had adequate answers to his questions.  Most likely the CES Director thought it'd all just go away, didn't feel he had time, and decided to ignore it since the letter itself was more than just questions, but conclusions, as in he answered his own questions.  Prove his personal conclusions wrong with what?  With the CES Directors own personal conclusions?  I think he felt it was a waste of time. 

9 hours ago, Rico said:

As most people here have boasted and bragged "his questions aren't new, they've been answered before!"  Well, if that's true, the mysterious CES Director could've just simply copied and pasted answers from here.  Answering Jeremy would've been peanuts.  Nobody need reinvent the wheel.  I have to keep repeating this until it sinks in: answering Jeremy is not a tough job.  Therefore, THAT is not the problem.

I don't get it.  Are you under the impressions that Jeremy's questions are new, as in original to him?  Why do you think that?  As to whether they've been answered, well that's another story.  I straight up suggest that many of his questions have no definitive answers.  he knows that.  We simply can't know exactly why Elizabethan English is found in the Book of Mormon, nor why errors are found in it.  You see, if it is scripture, and is representative of what God wants us to have as scripture, then why does it matter if there are errors?  Perhaps it was God's intent to leave errors be.  We dont' know.  Does that mean there hasn't been people who have addressed this issue?  There have been.  This question has been asked for decades, perhaps even extending back into the 1800s.  To some it means something very significant, to others it does not.  No one can help that. 

 

9 hours ago, Rico said:

I'm not trying to defend Runnells here.  I'm sure somewhere down the road he expected his excommunication.  And the Church knew it would do so. The only question left is how he should go about it.  Same witht he Church. He needs no defense when the Church is clearly bungling its case.

What needs pointing out is the sheer stupidity of not engaging him when things were still manageable.  The Church clearly dropped its ball in several ways.  Not engaging him is the first truly stupid mistake.

I agree.  It was a mistake by the CES director to ignore him.  But it happened.  It's just one guy making a decision and that decision is all over the place.  I don't see it as a big deal. 

 

9 hours ago, Rico said:

Why?  Because later on the Stake Pres tried to OFFER A WRITTEN DIALOGUE with Jeremy during the church court proceedings.  The Stake Pres is now offering what should have been done by the CES Director long ago.  Isn't this belated offer a clear admission that they miserably FAILED the first time by not engaging?  

These are individual people.  They aren't grouped together working together talking designing how to deal with Jeremy.  Some years passed between the interactions with the different individuals.  You are acting as if they were in this together or something. 

9 hours ago, Rico said:

"Dear Horse, please come back... I'm closing the barn door now,"

CES instructors are quite proficient in their knowledge of church doctrine and history.  That is to be expected since they work full-time.  I would expect them to be the front-liners in receiving anti-Mormon criticism considering they work mostly in college envirnments.  They're like the marines.  To answer Jeremy should not be a big deal at all, especially when you have so many wise men in this website alone whose answers can easily copied and pasted, unless....

Unless some high-ranking Church official told the CES Director to "stand down" and not engage.  Other than this, it is hard to explain the mysterious CES Director's apparent silence.

I disagree.  I'd say there are any number of reasons why the director ignored Jeremy and most of them have nothing to do with the CES director notifying any high-ranking Church official at all. 

9 hours ago, Rico said:

The Mormon church has always had this policy not to engage apostates and their questions.  It's been that way since the Tanners in the 1960s.  Lower church officials are told not to debate, but only to focus on the apostates behavior.  They are not interested in rooting out the causes of the behavior.  Jeremy should know and expect that policy in his church court's proceedings.  That is specifically why he kept repeating about the non-response to his questions.  The recordings clearly show how the court council, by not debating the questions, were practicing this policy to the letter.  They were "standing down."

They didn't bite.  I respect them for not biting.  I'd agree that wasn't the place to get caught up in his nonsense.  he knows the questions remain.  There will always be unanswered questions when it comes to this stuff.  he knows it.  he's just being bitter and upset, it seems to me.  Not much to defend, if you ask me.  he acted like a brat, not a man.  Which is too bad.  And I'm not saying the leadership in that stake did much better, BTW.  The other odd thing was, and extremely inconsistent, problematic to his case, is he condemned the essays as concluding the wrongness of the Church.  When that is not the case at all.  He complained there were no answers to his questions and then tried to throw in their faces the essays condemn the Church, as if his questions are addressed in the essays.  His was just a rant against his own frustration. 

9 hours ago, Rico said:

Thanks to Jeremy, the stupidity of this policy in the internet age is now revealed for all to see.  Just last month, this headline from the SLC Tribune:

"Apostle tells Mormon educators: Don’t duck tough questions — whether about polygamy, priesthood or other topics"
http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/3617356-155/apostle-tells-mormon-educators-dont-duck

Now why would an Apostle tell them not to to duck if they were not ducking at anything?  To me, this gives "Duck Dynasty" a new meaning...  Apparently, the time to tell the marines to stand down is over. It's time to engage.

And what about Joseph Smith's teaching that "contention is of the devil"? (3 Nephi 11:29)

Fuhgettaboutit...

I agree, we're much better off being completely open and honest about all things pertaining to the Church.  I have no problem with that policy even if the Church does.  Jeremy's case doesn't seem to add to that at all.  All it shows is some individual leaders don't know how to handle apostates like him.  Considering his posturing and hostility, it makes sense that people don't know how to handle that. 

[mnn727]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I noticed that while there is a scripture that says "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek and ye shall find, and to him that knocketh it shall be opened," (Matt 7:7) there is not one that says, "Blessed are they that sit like lumps, for they shall be spoonfed, and never caught of guard, and never ever disappointed by anyone."

This is the best answer to any questions. 

When I was investigating the Church 24+ years ago, long before internet resources. I read a number of Anti-Mormon books. The fact that I was able to research these in the days before the internet to prove them wrong just shows that if you seek, you will find and with the internet today, finding is so much easier than it was in the old days.

Every question Mr Runnels had could have been answered by him with a bit of research, IF he had actually wanted answers.

Edited April 21, 2016 by mnn727

[churchistrue]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I noticed that while there is a scripture that says "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek and ye shall find, and to him that knocketh it shall be opened," (Matt 7:7) there is not one that says, "Blessed are they that sit like lumps, for they shall be spoonfed, and never caught of guard, and never ever disappointed by anyone."  

Kevin, take it fwiw, I've seen you say this probably no less than 30 times, and it offends me every time.  You've said it to me personally probably at least five times over the past 10 years in various forums.  I'm someone who has spent thousand and thousands of hours in my life studying the scriptures, studying scripture commentary, studying historical resources, being taught in formal education, debating and engaging others to refine my throught process, serving in the church, and actively seeking God in my spiritual journey.  Yet, you had no problem arrogantly dropping this on me over and over.  I really think you should drop this schtick.  

[churchistrue]

7 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

This is the best answer to any questions. 

When I was investigating the Church 24+ years ago, long before internet resources. I read a number of Anti-Mormon books. The fact that I was able to research these in the days before the internet to prove them wrong just shows that if you seek, you will find and with the internet today, finding is so much easier than it was in the old days.

Every question Mr Runnels had could have been answered by him with a bit of research, IF he had actually wanted answers.

Maybe, but don't assume that because someone comes to different conclusions you do that it means they haven't studied enough.

[JAHS]

4 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

Every question Mr Runnels had could have been answered by him with a bit of research, IF he had actually wanted answers.

I think his main beef is that the questions were not being answered by "official" church sources. He would not accept answers by anyone else. The problem is that no one has answers to all the questions. We have to have faith and patience that we will eventually understand all things.

[Calm]

The Gospel Essays are about as official as one can get.  In what way did Runnells ever acknowledge the effort to provide answers, even if he didn't accept them, through them?

[churchistrue]

5 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I think his main beef is that the questions were not being answered by "official" church sources. He would not accept answers by anyone else. The problem is that no one has answers to all the questions. We have to have faith and patience that we will eventually understand all things.

No. His main beef is that the church is not true yet it exists.  Everything else is an effort to publicize potentially faith damaging facts and his conclusions and embarrass the church as much as possible.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

The Gospel Essays are about as official as one can get.  In what way did Runnells ever acknowledge the effort to provide answers, even if he didn't accept them, through them?

It was an odd train of reasoning he went down, I think.  he wanted the essays to vindicate his points.  But he also complained he only had questions.  his conclusion is the Church is not inspired and is a fraud.  The essays don't conclude that.  They argue against that if anything (meaning if they even address the issue).  I think he was thrown off about how it was going to go and then just kind of rambled things off without realizing how inconsistent and reactive he was being. 

[stemelbow]

Trying to piece the timeline together.  Did the essays start coming out before or after Jeremy's letter to a CES Director?   My thinking is the essays started coming out maybe later 2013.  But I can't remember.  Anyone know? 

[Tacenda]

9 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

This is the best answer to any questions. 

When I was investigating the Church 24+ years ago, long before internet resources. I read a number of Anti-Mormon books. The fact that I was able to research these in the days before the internet to prove them wrong just shows that if you seek, you will find and with the internet today, finding is so much easier than it was in the old days.

Every question Mr Runnels had could have been answered by him with a bit of research, IF he had actually wanted answers.

I could be lumped into the scenario that Keven portrayed of those that don't do their research painstakingly.  But I wasn't searching it, it was pretty much thrown at me.  I didn't want to know it.  In my naivety I was happy to go along.  

So if you and Kevin aren't the lazy ones, where are the answers?  I think I'm ready for the true answers now.  Seeing as how I've been in this totally bizarre life now.  This life where I have to shut up or be condemned for my questions.  You don't live in my neighborhood or ward, so don't judge.   

My bishop turned SP, pretty much left me hanging.  He has yet to ask how I'm doing.  It's a big elephant in the room.  Maybe if he had I'd be like many on here that keep the faith, I'll never know.

So mnn727, care to point me in the right direction, since several of my questions are the same as Runnels and you state that every question can be answered with a bit of research.  I really want the answers, and I believe Jeremy did too.  

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

I could be lumped into the scenario that Keven portrayed of those that don't do their research painstakingly.  But I wasn't searching it, it was pretty much thrown at me.  I didn't want to know it.  In my naivety I was happy to go along.  

So if you and Kevin aren't the lazy ones, where are the answers?  I think I'm ready for the true answers now.  Seeing as how I've been in this totally bizarre life now.  This life where I have to shut up or be condemned for my questions.  You don't live in my neighborhood or ward, so don't judge.   

My bishop turned SP, pretty much left me hanging.  He has yet to ask how I'm doing.  It's a big elephant in the room.  Maybe if he had I'd be like many on here that keep the faith, I'll never know.

So mnn727, care to point me in the right direction, since several of my questions are the same as Runnels and you state that every question can be answered with a bit of research.  I really want the answers, and I believe Jeremy did too.  

I don't think it wise to pretend every question can be answered.  I have tons of questions too.  But my questions, I admit, can't draw me to the conclusion of fraud, or evil or whatever it is Jeremy has concluded.  I suspect many to most questions asked these days will remain unanswered our whole lives.  I personally want to and hope to find the place in life where I'm comfortable with unanswered questions.  I dont' know about you, but for me it's not the questions that really bother me, its my concerns, my own conclusions.  I have to admit my conclusions may be off what is real though.