Jeremy Runnells Excommunicated

[HappyJackWagon]

I wish Runnels was provided answers to the questions he asked. The fact that he hasn't doesn't reflect well on the church.

However, he is actively attempting to damage the church. I'm not a fan of excommunication yet it seems reasonable for the church to separate themselves from someone trying to hurt them and their mission. So removing official "membership" from the group seems reasonable but IMO the church goes off track when they cancel saving ordinances, performed by "proper priesthood authority" such as baptism and sealings.

In that case it becomes less of a protection from harm and more of an eternal judgment that men have no business making.

[Calm]

"Recognizing that today so much information about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can be obtained from questionable and often inaccurate sources, officials of the Church began in 2013 to publish straightforward, in-depth essays on a number of topics. The purpose of these essays, which have been approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, has been to gather accurate information from many different sources and publications and place it in the Gospel Topics section of LDS.org, where the material can more easily be accessed and studied by Church members and other interested parties."

https://www.lds.org/topics/essays?lang=eng

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I wish Runnels was provided answers to the questions he asked. The fact that he hasn't doesn't reflect well on the church.

Do you mean answers he was satisfied with or any answers/responses at all?

[Rain]

Is there any evidence about the CES letter thar comes from any source other that Runnels. My understanding is that Runnels was asked to give questions to a CES director who was a friend of his grandpa. We don't know who the director was. So do we have evidence that the director asked for the list, that he looked at it or received it? Anything at all to verify that there was a connection between him and Runnels besides what Runnels tells us?

[Tacenda]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

"Recognizing that today so much information about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can be obtained from questionable and often inaccurate sources, officials of the Church began in 2013 to publish straightforward, in-depth essays on a number of topics. The purpose of these essays, which have been approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, has been to gather accurate information from many different sources and publications and place it in the Gospel Topics section of LDS.org, where the material can more easily be accessed and studied by Church members and other interested parties."

https://www.lds.org/topics/essays?lang=eng

These answers are very close to verifying the anti Mormon literature, how can that be good?  Are we to love it or lump it?  The essays don't help me Calm.  I like the church before, I like the rose colored glasses.  I want the history to not have taken place.  I want the early 70's version of the church, please bring that church back, very fond memories.  Bake sales, cake walks, roadshows, fun youth conferences.  Hardly simplified, church has gotten so big and correlated I don't know if that church even exists.  

    

[ALarson]

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you mean answers he was satisfied with or any answers/responses at all?

Maybe in the beginning he truly was searching for help and answers, but after awhile I really believe that it wasn't answers that Runnells wanted anymore.  To me it seemed that he wanted the leaders to agree with his conclusions and acknowledge they'd been wrong.  He did get responses from many places, but none that did this, so he just kept saying that he was getting no answers (I agree that many responses were just personal attacks that did not really address his questions).  

Bottom line for me is that we all have to find our own answers.  Study what information is available and come to our own conclusions.  I don't need the leaders to validate my conclusions.

.

Edited April 21, 2016 by ALarson

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

These answers are very close to verifying the anti Mormon literature, how can that be good?  Are we to love it or lump it?  The essays don't help me Calm.  I like the church before, I like the rose colored glasses.  I want the history to not have taken place.  I want the early 70's version of the church, please bring that church back, very fond memories.  Bake sales, cake walks, roadshows, fun youth conferences.  Hardly simplified, church has gotten so big and correlated I don't know if that church even exists.  

    

The early 70s Church of even more discrimination?  I don't get how anyone can go back to illusion when one is disillusioned.  We need to learn to appreciate what is reality over fanciful living in ignorance. 

[HappyJackWagon]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you mean answers he was satisfied with or any answers/responses at all?

Good answers would be ideal, but I was referring to ANY answers. There appears to have been no attempt to answer the questions he asked. This makes it appear that 1- there are no good answers or 2- those who could answer wrote him off as unsalvageable and therefore not worth the time 3- every leader, including the CES director, was too busy for the last few years to engage the questions

[mnn727]

59 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

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

However if they come to ANY conclusion, then why continue to ask the question?

[Kevin Christensen]

28 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

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.  

Since you've "spent thousands and thousands of hours" studying, and since in this instance, I was responding to Rico, why do you suppose that in my arrogance I dropped this on you?   I do know people who never read books, and those who may read some or a lot but not from "out of the best books words of wisdom."  From your self description, you don't seem like one who just sits like a lump.  I recall explaining before, that I did not have a spiritual awakening and begin directed personal study until my mission.  Before that, I was for the most part, a passive student, and my intellectual readiness reflected that, and therefore, that the phrase I composed is also directed at my younger self and the results generated by my own passivity.

If I quoted Galatians 6:7, "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap," would you still feel as though I had dropped something unpleasant on you?  

How about D&C 130:18  "Whatsoever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it shall rise with us in the resurrection?"   Does a sense of entitlement accompanied by a total lack of effort as a general principle and as an approach to life lead to good results?   Is the principle I express wrong?  Or just wrong to express out loud or in those terms?   While unconditional love and tolerance sounds wonderful in the abstract, I notice that nearly everything that Jesus says actually states conditions, and therefore implies that part of Christian love involves a willingness to state conditions and standards, something that a behavior called "enabling" is not willing to do.  And of course, sometimes Jesus said things that offended people.  The bread of life sermon is one example. 

John 6:61

When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

And this, part of the explanation of the Parable of the Sower, the parable that is key to all parables:

Matthew 13:21

Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.

Which is why Jesus comments:

Luke 7:23

And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.

I just searched this board for the phrase "Blessed are they that sit like lumps" and got a total of 17 hits going back about seven years, about 8 of which pointed to me.  In no case did I intend to cause offense, but rather to encourage self reflection and thought.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[ALarson]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

 every leader, including the CES director, was too busy for the last few years to engage the questions

Do we know who the CES director is?  Just curious if he's ever come forward or spoken about the letter at all.

 

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The early 70s Church of even more discrimination?  I don't get how anyone can go back to illusion when one is disillusioned.  We need to learn to appreciate what is reality over fanciful living in ignorance. 

Oh, you must be young then and didn't live in the 70's, but hopefully you had a good youth experience as well.

[mnn727]

47 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

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.  

Not knowing your questions I can only refer you to: Google, your local public library, your Church library and the Church website. Back when I was looking I only had the public library and the Ward library.

I have also found in my 60 years on this planet that people do not value anything handed to them. I found my answers to the questions I had (at the time from the Tanners books) by spending a few months and searching my own answers. I investigated the Church for over a year before being baptized. I value and trust my answers because I found them myself. My belief is that if you are not willing to look at everything - both sides to a question, then you really don't want the actual answer. That's hard for some people to accept, nevertheless, its 100% true. Someone not willing to do the hard work required will never make it at 'becoming like God'.

You can find the answers, I believe in your ability, now the question is, do you believe in yourself?

 

[rodheadlee]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Good answers would be ideal, but I was referring to ANY answers. There appears to have been no attempt to answer the questions he asked. This makes it appear that 1- there are no good answers or 2- those who could answer wrote him off as unsalvageable and therefore not worth the time 3- every leader, including the CES director, was too busy for the last few years to engage the questions

His questions aren't even good questions. How about you make your own up to date list?

[ttribe]

14 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

However if they come to ANY conclusion, then why continue to ask the question?

Perhaps they hold out hope for new answers that might cause them to change their conclusions?  Is that so hard to imagine?

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

His questions aren't even good questions. 

Which ones are you referring to?  Can you quote some of his specific questions that are not "good questions"?

Quote

 "There are naive questions, tedious questions, ill-phrased questions, questions put after inadequate self-criticism. But every question is a cry to understand the world. There is no such thing as a dumb question" - Carl Sagan

.

Edited April 21, 2016 by ALarson

[longview]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

In that case it becomes less of a protection from harm and more of an eternal judgment that men have no business making.

Psalms 69:28
28 Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous.
Doctrine and Covenants 20:83
83 And also, if any have been expelled from the church, so that their names may be blotted out of the general church record of names.
Alma 1:24
24 For the hearts of many were hardened, and their names were blotted out, that they were remembered no more among the people of God. And also many withdrew themselves from among them.
Alma 5:57
57 And now I say unto you, all you that are desirous to follow the voice of the good shepherd, come ye out from the wicked, and be ye separate, and touch not their unclean things; and behold, their names shall be blotted out, that the names of the wicked shall not be numbered among the names of the righteous, that the word of God may be fulfilled, which saith: The names of the wicked shall not be mingled with the names of my people;
Alma 6:3
3 And it also came to pass that whosoever did belong to the church that did not repent of their wickedness and humble themselves before God—I mean those who were lifted up in the pride of their hearts—the same were rejected, and their names were blotted out, that their names were not numbered among those of the righteous.
Moroni 6:7
7 And they were strict to observe that there should be no iniquity among them; and whoso was found to commit iniquity, and three witnesses of the church did condemn them before the elders, and if they repented not, and confessed not, their names were blotted out, and they were not numbered among the people of Christ.

[mnn727]

21 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Perhaps they hold out hope for new answers that might cause them to change their conclusions?  Is that so hard to imagine?

See my above reply to Tacenda for your answer. 

[HappyJackWagon]

18 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

His questions aren't even good questions. How about you make your own up to date list?

Please identify the "bad" questions.

I have no need to make a large list of questions. When I hit full crisis mode I had been serving as bishop for 4 years. I was working hard to find real answers but wasn't finding them on my own. My Stake Pres. was unable to provide good answers. All he could suggest is Read, study, pray, and attend the temple. I was already doing all of those things faithfully as well as performing many hours of service each week in my calling.

So I wrote a letter to Pres. Uchtdorf (because I thought he seemed empathetic) and Elder Nelson (because I had met and had private conversation with him previously). I expressed how lost I felt and how fearful I was of losing my family. I asked 2 questions (not going to share because they are private). I plead for help.

I got NOTHING in response. No acknowledgement of any kind. It wasn't even forwarded to my SP. Complete radio silence. I had sent the letter snail mail as well as email to each individual so I find it hard to believe they didn't receive the letter.

Frankly, if they can't take the time to answer 2 questions (difficult but sincere) from a bishop pleading for help, then I have zero desire to prepare a list of questions that will also be ignored.

[Tacenda]

I know we're long past the discussion about the interpreter for Jeremy, but recently saw this quote from the SP.  What does anyone think, doesn't it seem kind of callous?  I guess this quote escaped me, or wasn't paying attention.

"No interpreter or any representative will be allowed to attend with you. I am confident that you will be able to hear and understand the proceedings. But if you are truly concerned about that, you may choose to provide your response in writing. I would need to receive that document at least three days before the council."

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

See my above reply to Tacenda for your answer. 

I don't see how that's responsive, but whatever.

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, longview said:

Moroni 6:7
7 And they were strict to observe that there should be no iniquity among them; and whoso was found to commit iniquity, and three witnesses of the church did condemn them before the elders, and if they repented not, and confessed not, their names were blotted out, and they were not numbered among the people of Christ.

Yep- I already acknowledge removing their official membership which would be the same as blotting their names out so they are not numbered among the church. It says nothing about stripping them of saving ordinances.

Question- Does a bishop or Stake President have the keys to cancel temple ordinances? The answer is "no".

Why then are they, by policy, given authority to nullify ordinances they didn't even have the authority to imbue in the first place?

[Duncan]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

Please identify the "bad" questions.

I have no need to make a large list of questions. When I hit full crisis mode I had been serving as bishop for 4 years. I was working hard to find real answers but wasn't finding them on my own. My Stake Pres. was unable to provide good answers. All he could suggest is Read, study, pray, and attend the temple. I was already doing all of those things faithfully as well as performing many hours of service each week in my calling.

So I wrote a letter to Pres. Uchtdorf (because I thought he seemed empathetic) and Elder Nelson (because I had met and had private conversation with him previously). I expressed how lost I felt and how fearful I was of losing my family. I asked 2 questions (not going to share because they are private). I plead for help.

I got NOTHING in response. No acknowledgement of any kind. It wasn't even forwarded to my SP. Complete radio silence. I had sent the letter snail mail as well as email to each individual so I find it hard to believe they didn't receive the letter.

Frankly, if they can't take the time to answer 2 questions (difficult but sincere) from a bishop pleading for help, then I have zero desire to prepare a list of questions that will also be ignored.

if you don't mind me asking but how long have you been waiting for an answer? I wrote someone a latter too and it took a year to hear back

[longview]

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I don't see how that's responsive, but whatever.

Because you don't like the answer?  Taking no responsibility for searching the scriptures and applying them to yourself?   Does his answer makes you squirm in your chair?

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, Duncan said:

if you don't mind me asking but how long have you been waiting for an answer? I wrote someone a latter too and it took a year to hear back

2 years exactly.

An answer now would be of very little help.

Edited April 21, 2016 by HappyJackWagon