Jeremy Runnells Excommunicated

[longview]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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

I don't claim to know such things.  You know more than me, with you having been in leadership positions.  But I assume a standard form is filled out and sent to the appropriate general office for their decision for further action.

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, longview said:

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?

Uhh, back off there attack-dog.  I was engaging in a discussion about a hypothetical, not my personal experience.

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

2 years exactly.

An answer now would be of very little help.

try again? 

[Tacenda]

41 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

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?

 

I appreciate your response, I didn't know you were a convert.  How exciting to be a convert, I think that converts have an edge over us born in the covenant types.  I've always held converts in high esteem.  

Now that I think of it, I actually did use the library.  I checked out Leonard J. Arrington's book, since he was a church historian.  Also Richard Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling.  And Fawn Brodie, and even the No, Ma'am that Ain't History by Hugh Nibley that refuted it.  I checked out D. Michael Quinn's book Early Mormonism and the World Magic View.  These and others led me to Grant Palmer's book, Insiders View of Mormonism.  So really I did attempt to figure it out by using the library.  And before my faith crisis which is ongoing for many years, I read many biography's of church presidents.  I remember reading one by a daughter I believe, of Brigham Young too, so an early Mormon prophet.  Love autobiography's/ biography's.  Of course I had a very hard time reading clear through some the church history books, never made it to the end, so really need the one for dummies!  

So I guess I wasn't as lazy after all!  

[smac97]

On 4/21/2016 at 8:01 AM, 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.

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.

The problem here is that Mr. Runnells was provided answers to the questions he asked.  Extensively.  Take a look at FAIR's responses to the letter.  And Mr. Runnells knew about and extensively responded to FAIR's treatment of his letter well before his disciplinary council.  Kevin Christensen also responded extensively to the letter (at least twice, in fact), and Mr. Runnells responded to that as well (well, sorta - he had a fellow critic write the response for him).  Daniel Peterson has also addressed the letter (not in a point-by-point kind of way, but rather from a "let's take a step back and look at the broader picture" kind of way), and Mr. Runnells responded to that as well.  

All of these remarks about Mr. Runnells' letter were published well before his disciplinary council.  And yet Mr. Runnells is running around insisting that he's never received an answer to them.  That the Church has been "ignoring" his questions for "3 years."  

Perhaps most significantly, Mr. Runnells claims to have asked his SP to "identify error or mistakes in the CES Letter, or on the website, is incorrect so {he} can publicly correct it."  In his various responses to FAIR, Christensen and Peterson (here, here and here), he does not appear to give any substantive reconsideration to his letter based in response to the points raised by these folks.  I acknowledge that Mr. Runnells posted a list of 17 trivial "errors" he made in his letter, but he then triumphantly declares that the balance of his letter, "95%," consists of "correct claims."  He declares his opinion to be "correct" at pretty much every turn.  Such self-congratulatory validation is rather problematic.  

In other words, here is where I think we can detect some bad faith in Mr. Runnells.  He is plainly not looking for answers.  He is looking for argument.  He is not looking for information.  He is looking for validation.

If Mr. Runnells was really interested in a good faith discussion about his letter, he would not have written the letter in such a deliberately offensive, risible, and profane manner.  He would not have written it in such a mishmash, throw-it-all-against-the-wall-and-see-how-much-of-it-sticks, death-by-a-thousand-paper-cuts kind of way.  He would not have been so demonstrably hostile and angry to the responses he claims to have wanted to receive.  

I see this schtick rather frequently in litigation, almost always from pro se litigants (who appear in court to represent themselves rather than hire an attorney).  The type of guy I usually see (I'll call him "John Q.") presents a laundry list of grievances and expect the court and the defendant to hop to and spend months, if not years, answering each any every point raised by him.  

The defendant (that's me, or rather, my client), however, is typically significantly more well-versed in the law, and sees that John Q. is upset but isn't as interested in using the court system to obtain information relevant to his claim, and instead is spoiling for a fight and hoping to punish the defendant by using the court system to "show up" or embarrass the defendant and force it to run up significant legal expenses.  

An attorney in my position has no choice, really, but to not engage John Q in addressing the particulars of his grievances, and must instead work to sever the litigation by resorting to the law.  There have been times when I can see that a John Q. is basically a good guy who ended up in tough circumstances.  But when John Q. is angry at and determined to publicly injure my client, there's not much point in trying to reason with him.  This type of person is not looking for answers to his grievances.  He wants capitulation.  He wants to punish.  He wants to humiliate.  He wants bragging rights.  He wants money.  

This is how I perceive Jeremy Runnells.  He's really, really angry.  He's not looking for answers or information that could shore up and strengthen his faith in the Restored Gospel.  He is looking for argument, for validation of his point of view, for attention, for bragging rights.  He wants to injure and humiliate the LDS Church.  He wants to alienate others from the LDS Church, both by persuading adherents to leave it and by persuading outsiders to reject it out-of-hand.  And he wants to do all of these things in order to obtain "the praise of the world" and "to get gain."  For money.  Filthy lucre.

I am saddened, but not surprised, by what Mr. Runnells is doing.  I hope at some point in the future he stops and takes a few steps back and reconsiders what he is doing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 21, 2016 by smac97

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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

I don't understand this question. They have the same authority to imbue as they have to nullify. 

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The problem here is that Mr. Runnells was provided answers to the questions he asked.  Extensively.  Take a look at FAIR's responses to the letter.  And Mr. Runnells knew about and extensively responded to FAIR's treatment of his letter well before his disciplinary council.  Kevin Christensen also responded extensively to the letter (at least twice, in fact), and Mr. Runnells responded to that as well (well, sorta - he had a fellow critic write the response for him).  Daniel Peterson has also addressed the letter (not in a point-by-point kind of way, but rather from a "let's take a step back and look at the broader picture" kind of way), and Mr. Runnells responded to that as well.  

All of these remarks about Mr. Runnells' letter were published well before his disciplinary council.  And yet Mr. Runnells is running around insisting that he's never received an answer to them.  That the Church has been "ignoring" his questions for "3 years."  

Perhaps most significantly, Mr. Runnells claims to have asked his SP to "identify error or mistakes in the CES Letter, or on the website, is incorrect so {he} can publicly correct it."  In his various responses to FAIR, Christensen and Peterson (here, here and here), he does not appear to give any substantive reconsideration to his letter based in response to the points raised by these folks.  I acknowledge that Mr. Runnells posted a list of 17 trivial "errors" he made in his letter, but he then triumphantly declares that the balance of his letter, "95%," consists of "correct claims."  He declares his opinion to be "correct" at pretty much every turn.  Such self-congratulatory validation is rather problematic.  

In other words, here is where I think we can detect some bad faith in Mr. Runnells.  He is plainly not looking for answers.  He is looking for argument.  He is not looking for information.  He is looking for validation.

If Mr. Runnells was really interested in a good faith discussion about his letter, he would not have written the letter in such a deliberately offensive, risible, and profane manner.  He would not have written it in such a mishmash, throw-it-all-against-the-wall-and-see-how-much-of-it-sticks, death-by-a-thousand-paper-cuts kind of way.  He would not have been so demonstrably hostile and angry to the responses he claims to have wanted to receive.  

I see this schtick rather frequently in litigation, almost always from pro se litigants (who appear in court to represent themselves rather than hire an attorney).  The type of guy I usually see (I'll call him "John Q.") present a laundry list of grievances and expect the court and the defendant to hop to and spend months, if not years, answering each any every point raised by him.  

The defendant (that's me, or rather, my client), however, is typically significantly more well-versed in the law, and sees that John Q. is upset but isn't as interested in using the court system to obtain information relevant to his claim, and instead is spoiling for a fight and hoping to punish the defendant by using the court system to "show up" or embarrass the defendant and force it to run up significant legal expenses.  

An attorney in my position has no choice, really, but to not engage John Q in his grievances, and must instead work to sever the litigation by resorting to the law.  There have been times when I can see that a John Q. is basically a good guy who ended up in tough circumstances.  But when John Q. is angry at and determined to publicly injure my client, there's not much point in trying to reason with him.  This type of person is not looking for answers to his grievances.  He wants capitulation.  He wants to punish.  He wants to humiliate.  He wants bragging rights.  He wants money.  

This is how I perceive Jeremy Runnells.  He's really, really angry.  He's not looking for answers or information that could shore up and strengthen his faith in the Restored Gospel.  He is looking for argument, for validation of his point of view, for attention, for the praise of the world, for bragging rights.  He wants to injure and humiliate the LDS Church.  He wants to alienate others from the LDS Church, both by persuading adherents to leave it and by persuading outsiders to reject it out-of-hand.  And he wants to do all of these things "to get gain."  For money.  Filthy lucre.

I am saddened, but not surprised, by what Mr. Runnells is doing.  I hope at some point in the future he stops and takes a few steps back and reconsiders what he is doing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac- you realize that FAIR is not the Church, right?

He claims the church has not answered his questions. He is right. No church representative (to my knowledge) has answered his questions. His Stake Pres. didn't even attempt to answer them. Internet apologists have no authority to speak for the church.

[JAHS]

2 hours ago, churchistrue said:

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.

I agree that is his main goal, but he uses the excuse that official answers are not coming from church leaders. 

[smac97]

On 4/21/2016 at 9:52 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

Smac- you realize that FAIR is not the Church, right?

Yes, I realize that.

Quote

He claims the church has not answered his questions. He is right. No church representative (to my knowledge) has answered his questions. His Stake Pres. didn't even attempt to answer them. Internet apologists have no authority to speak for the church.

I don't think that's the problem.  It's not really a question of "authority."  I think Mr. Runnells would have responded to the CES Director, or to his SP, with the same vitriol as he has when responding to FAIR, Christensen and Peterson (except I think he would also glory in the adulation of his fellow critics for luring representatives of the Church into a public and neverending-and-therefore-futile argument).  And even if the CES Director or the SP had responded to his laundry list, he would have come up with the same excuse you present here: that they "have no authority to speak for the church."  In terms of declaring doctrine, only the Presiding High Priest can do that.  The rest of us are really just secondary authorities.

In any event, it seems rather clear that Mr. Runnells was not looking for answers.  Not really.  He was looking for argument.  I have a son who used to be like that.  I would give him a Saturday morning work assignment, and he would twist and turn and come up with all sorts of questions designed not to clarify what he is supposed to do, but rather give him an excuse to not do the work for himself.  I tried a time or two to reason things out with him, but once I realized he was not looking for answers, but for argument and for justification of his desire to avoid work, I ceased accommodating him and just reiterated the assignment.  He would then get angry, saying that I wasn't being reasonable because I was not answering his questions.  And I would say something like "If I thought that your questions were a good faith effort to understand the job I have assigned you, I would happily answer them.  But you aren't looking for answers.  You are looking for an argument.  I love you, son, but cut the bull and get to work, please."

My son has since matured significantly from this phase, and I am grateful for it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 21, 2016 by smac97

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Smac- you realize that FAIR is not the Church, right?

He claims the church has not answered his questions. He is right. No church representative (to my knowledge) has answered his questions. His Stake Pres. didn't even attempt to answer them. Internet apologists have no authority to speak for the church.

His SP said he would answer them, but in writing and only for Jeremy.  Jeremy turned that offer down. 

[smac97]

On 4/21/2016 at 9:59 AM, JAHS said:

I agree that is his main goal, but he uses the excuse that official answers are not coming from church leaders. 

Yep.  The "I won't accept an answer to a doctrinal question from rank-and-file Latter-day Saints, and I instead insist on getting an 'official' answer from 'church leaders'" line of reasoning does not really work except for doctrinal issues about which there has been an absence of revelation and/or conflicting/contradictory statements by church leaders (such as on the origins of the Priesthood Ban).  We are all of us free to correctly expound on the doctrines of the Church.  I think that is what we are supposed to do.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

44 minutes ago, bluebell said:

His SP said he would answer them, but in writing and only for Jeremy.  Jeremy turned that offer down. 

I don't remember him saying that "he would answer them", but "only for Jeremy".  Are the answers a secret or something?

This reminds me of the briefcase with all the answers in it (but we're not going to show them to you).  

Why not just say we don't have the answers you're looking for?  Respond with something like "Do your own reading and studying and come to your own conclusions but don't ask us to agree with those conclusions".  I think that's all we can expect from the leaders (if there is any response at all, especially from the general leaders in SLC.)

I think Calm's explanation was the best regarding why the SP wished their "written dialogue" to be kept confidential. as that makes sense (at least to me  )

.

Edited April 21, 2016 by ALarson

[rongo]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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?

It has to do with delegated keys. Technically, only the President of the Church "holds and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys." Through delegation of these keys (through apostles and seventies, down through stake and district presidents and bishops and branch presidents), these keys are used limited strictly to the local unit level. 

Doctrinally and scripturally, this is forcefully taught through items like men who aren't God being given the authority to "seal" and to "loosen" (i.e., excommunicate) on earth *and* in heaven. Or, when the apostles (and later Paul taught that the Saints will judge the world) are told that they will judge the tribes of Israel. 

This authority to "loosen" has always been with the Church since the Meridian of Time, and the Restoration. 

 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I don't remember him saying that "he would answer them", but "only for Jeremy".  Are the answers a secret or something?

This reminds me of the briefcase with all the answers in it (but we're not going to show them to you).  

Why not just say we don't have the answers you're looking for?  Respond with something like "Do your own reading and studying and come to your own conclusions but don't ask us to agree with those conclusions".  I think that's all we can expect from the leaders (if any response at all, especially from the general leaders in SLC.)

I think Calm's explanation was the best regarding why the SP wished their "written dialogue" to be kept confidential as that makes sense (at least to me  )

He said he wanted the conversation to stay private.  This is only a guess but it was probably because Jeremy had 1) recorded him without him knowing in the past and 2) was actively working with anti-mormons and the SP probably didn't want them to be a part of the conversation.

 

[Duncan]

Just now, rongo said:

It has to do with delegated keys. Technically, only the President of the Church "holds and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys." Through delegation of these keys (through apostles and seventies, down through stake and district presidents and bishops and branch presidents), these keys are used limited strictly to the local unit level. 

Doctrinally and scripturally, this is forcefully taught through items like men who aren't God being given the authority to "seal" and to "loosen" (i.e., excommunicate) on earth *and* in heaven. Or, when the apostles (and later Paul taught that the Saints will judge the world) are told that they will judge the tribes of Israel. 

This authority to "loosen" has always been with the Church since the Meridian of Time, and the Restoration. 

 

in other words, a cop didn't write the laws but he enforces them. We nullify ourselves

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

He said he wanted the conversation to stay private.  This is only a guess but it was probably because Jeremy had 1) recorded him without him knowing in the past and 2) was actively working with anti-mormons and the SP probably didn't want them to be a part of the conversation.

I like Calm's explanation best and I completely understand why the SP asked for their dialogue to be kept confidential.

Had Runnells recorded him in the past?  I wasn't aware of that, do you have a link for this?

And, I was responding to you stating above that the SP had told Runnells he would answer his questions.  I don't recall him ever saying that (but quote him if he did as I'd like to see the quote.)  I've only seen it stated that he offered to have a "written dialogue" with Runnells.

Edited April 21, 2016 by ALarson

[Sleeper Cell]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Perhaps the church went “off track” when it started performing the  “saving ordinances” by “proper priesthood authority” in the first place.   By your argument, why wouldn’t performing “saving ordinances” be tantamount to saying that unless you receive these ordinances, you will not be saved in the eternities (or, at the very least, miss out on some of the eternal blessings that you otherwise would have received)?   Why wouldn’t this also be “an eternal judgment that men have no business making?”   

Even if you don’t believe that “proper priesthood authority” is exclusive to any church, wouldn’t the same apply to any person who claims to be performing “saving ordinances?”  

The very fact that deceased excommunicated people may be (and have been) rebaptized and receive all the other saving ordinances by proxy would suggest that the church is leaving  “eternal judgment” in the hands of the Lord.  Especially if the church also teaches that Jesus will return to reign personally on this earth, and that baptisms and other saving ordinances for the dead will continue to be performed during the millennium.

[smac97]

On 4/21/2016 at 9:24 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

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?

I think you are incorrect here.  A bishop or stake president has authority to excommunicate (see, e.g., D&C 107:72), which operates as a revocation of all ordinances.  So the answer to the first question is "yes."

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I like Calm's explanation best and I completely understand why the SP asked for their dialogue to be kept confidential.

Had Runnells recorded him in the past?  I wasn't aware of that, do you have a link for this?

And, I was responding to you stating above that the SP had told Runnells he would answer his questions.  I don't recall him ever saying that (but quote him if he did as I'd like to see the quote.)  I've only seen it stated that he offered to have a "written dialogue" with Runnells.

I'll see if i can find it.

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Yep.  The "I won't accept an answer to a doctrinal question from rank-and-file Latter-day Saints, and I instead insist on getting an 'official' answer from 'church leaders'" line of reasoning does not really work except for doctrinal issues about which there has been an absence of revelation and/or conflicting/contradictory statements by church leaders (such as on the origins of the Priesthood Ban).  We are all of us free to correctly expound on the doctrines of the Church.  I think that is what we are supposed to do.

Thanks,

-Smac

How are we supposed to "correctly expound on the doctrines of the Church" when "conflicting/contradictory statements" have been made by "church leaders"?

And doesn't the "conflicting/contradictory statements" by "church leaders" on some doctrinal positions cast doubt on the reliability of the rest?

In other words, if we know church leaders can be incorrect about doctrinal statements that conflict, why should we think they are correct simply because they all agree?

See what I mean?

[consiglieri]

 

Because I have been critical of the SP for his management of this hearing, I think it only fair to say how I think his performance could have been improved.

If I had been the SP, I might have told Jeremy that I had read the CES letter, and that he has obviously done a lot of work and research, and that he raises a lot of important questions there.

I might then say that I am not there to debate him, or to answer all of his questions, because I don't know that I have the background to be able to do so in a way that would be meaningful to Jeremy.

I would then ask Jeremy if it is okay if I say why it is that I, as the SP, believe the truth claims of Mormonism. After doing that, I would say that I know it might not mean a lot to Jeremy, and it probably won't convince him of anything, but that it means a lot to me personally, and I wanted to share that with him.

I would apologize for anything I may have done to offend Jeremy, and that even though we may never agree on the truth claims of Mormonism, I want him to know I love him as a human being and as a brother.

How do you think that would have gone over?

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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

It was fine enough.  But I hated myself in the 90s as a youth because of things like the priesthood ban.  how could I possibly believe this when such blatant racism was part of my Church at one time?  So if I had the same view in the 70s when it was common, as far as many have told me, to have racism preached in Church, I'd have gone bonkers about it.  Probably would have left and not looked back.  Of course, to be fair, while we shared community at Church it might not been quite what it was like for you. 

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I like Calm's explanation best and I completely understand why the SP asked for their dialogue to be kept confidential.

Had Runnells recorded him in the past?  I wasn't aware of that, do you have a link for this?

And, I was responding to you stating above that the SP had told Runnells he would answer his questions.  I don't recall him ever saying that (but quote him if he did as I'd like to see the quote.)  I've only seen it stated that he offered to have a "written dialogue" with Runnells.

This is what the SP said, in response to Runnells' statement that the SP never answered any of his questions.

"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."

As for the secret recording, I'm going off of what others have said here (that no one disputed as being true) but I don't have any knowledge of it myself.  Certainly if i'm mistaken then i will apologize for spreading a rumor.

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

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?

I am pretty sure all we have is Runnells' version.  No one in his family has spoken up one way or the other that I am aware of and the CES Director has not said anything nor do I think it is appropriate that Runnells release his email address or name.  Runnells' grandfather who was allegedly involved has since died.

[consiglieri]

It is clear from the transcript (that I just read) that the presence of a church-interpreter was sprung on Jeremy by the SP after Jeremy arrived.