Jeremy Runnells Excommunicated

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

These answers are very close to verifying the anti Mormon literature, how can that be good?  

    

Verifying what?  Their conclusions that the Church must be a fraud?  The problems come from what assumptions are made from how the Church and its members should act.  This is a subjective decision and in no way do the Church essays require the same sort of assumptions or conclusions that those who see the Church as a fraud hold.

[Gray]

3 hours 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.  

    

I keep encountering people who are nostalgic for that era of the church. I get the impression that correlation has kind of killed a lot of the fun things that used to glue wards together? I missed out on most of that stuff. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

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.

.

When I read this linked to below, it conveys to me a person who wants leaders to agree with his conclusions and acknowledge they've been wrong (a good summary, imo).  So this state was reached sometime before he compiled the Letter if my perception is accurate.  Which would explain why even though many have responded to him over the years, he still believes it is right to claim 'no answers'.  Too often we see ourselves as open to being told we are wrong when the reality (subjective one, of course) is we have so constructed  the parameters of what we will accept, the possibilities are too narrow for anyone to succeed. 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Online_documents/Letter_to_a_CES_Director/An_%22open_letter%22_to_Elder_Quentin_L._Cook

I am with you on the finding the answers for myself.  I actually enjoy the whole concept and effort of exploration and evaluation. I may ask for second opinions on how something appears in hope of controlling my bias in interpretation, but my conclusions are going to be my own and I don't really care if anyone agrees with me...though I don't mind it when it happens.  My only real disappointment comes when their conclusion is it isn't worth the effort to look any more or never tried in the first place. 

[ALarson]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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."

Thanks, that's the same quote I saw (that's why I was wondering if you'd seen a different one stating that the SP had the answers for Runnell's questions).

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

No, that's fine.  I just hadn't heard that he had recorded the SP previously and I was interested in that if it was true.

Thanks again!  

Edited April 21, 2016 by ALarson

[Calm]

3 hours 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

But the Gospel Topics essays themselves are answers to some of his questions, even if incomplete in someone's view or unsatisfying.  Scholarship that has been approved by the top officials in our faith.  These are from official sources, these are part of the CES curriculum now and are meant to be used by missionaries where appropriate.  Plus FairMormon and others have provided documentation dealing with a huge amount of his topics along with their own conclusions.

The only thing that hasn't been provided at least on one topic he goes into is a church official saying in specific response to one question of his is 'this is the answer that has been revealed to me' or 'this is the answer I found by digging through the secret documents in the FP vault.

To make such a broad claim that no answers/responses have been officially available on any of the questions he has presented in the CES letter in any of its permutations seems so detached from what I have been seeing happening for the past three years or so...and even before through the JSP project.

[stemelbow]

46 minutes ago, Calm said:

Verifying what?  Their conclusions that the Church must be a fraud?  The problems come from what assumptions are made from how the Church and its members should act.  This is a subjective decision and in no way do the Church essays require the same sort of assumptions or conclusions that those who see the Church as a fraud hold.

I agree.  I was confused by his point that the essays put out by the Church supported him, when his whole point was the Church won't address these things.  "No one will answer my questions", he exclaims, while in the same breath suggest, "my points are all confirmed by the Church". 

Unfortunately for him, as you suggested, the Church doesn't support his conclusions.  They are his.  And that's what the whole council, it appears, was focused on--his conclusions.

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

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

You want the SP to lie to him? The SP did not read the CES letter and those questions are not important. We can be saved without knowing the answers to those questions. If one does not believe that then he doesn't belong in the church.

[ksfisher]

52 minutes ago, Gray said:

I keep encountering people who are nostalgic for that era of the church. I get the impression that correlation has kind of killed a lot of the fun things that used to glue wards together? I missed out on most of that stuff. 

How has correlations killed of the things that Tacenda mentioned?  Our ward still has youth conferences.  The Young Women have some sort of dinner or cake sale every year as a fund raiser.  Haven't seen a roadshow since I was 15 or 16, but I don't think this has anything to do with correlation.  Wards are still capable of putting on plays or other similar things.  I don't see correlation as having anything to do with whether or not a ward has activities.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

Is there a scriptural reference for revoking all ordinances? As I've stated before, I recognize the scriptural authority to blot out the names and disassociate from certain people. To me this means they can remove membership from the church. But nullifying ordinances is a totally different ball game.

A bishop and a stake president do not have keys delegated to them to seal.  What I'm wondering is, if they don't have authority to seal, why would they have the authority to unseal?

[Calm]

 

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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."

In and of itself it seems very businesslike, pretty much identical in style to the letters my dad would send to family members.  Very focused on the problem at hand as he saw it.  Even so, my dad was very loving, compassionate and generous with his time and money.  He just didn't 'do' emotions.

There is also the problem this quote is provided no context from the SP.  There could be a massive amount of emotional concern in the rest of the email as well as reasonings explaining his conclusions, including references to stuff Runnells said to him.  It is unfair to judge a man based on a very limited context, especially given that it is probably highly influenced by the knowledge that anything written or shared might end up being published online given Runnells' habit od doing so with extensive commentary/interpretation since he started his CES letter project.

I will repeat myself that intepreters should be provided where possible when requested, as the SP actually did at the council whatever occured prior to that.

-----

One thing is a bit confusing to me, perhaps I have been reading it wrong.  What is the response in writing supposed to be to?  Would the apostasy details that the SP explained at the council be given in that email correspondence?  If not, how could Runnells provide a response to what is going to be said at the council prior to the council?  Is the response in writing actually about the interpreter issue?

----

This is the problem with leaking partial communications instead of all of it.  If you are going to break confidentiality, then at least do the person you are manipulating this way the courtesy of publishing the whole letter as well as any correspondence you sent first so we can read it how it was meant to be read by the writer.  Of course, that might not be how Runnells wants us to see it given he's left out some crucial evidence already.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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? 

If not answered, yes, late 2013.  I remember talking about how FM was able to just link to them as additional resources as they came out without have to delete or alter material responding, though some stuff may have been added with some.

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

How has correlations killed of the things that Tacenda mentioned?  Our ward still has youth conferences.  The Young Women have some sort of dinner or cake sale every year as a fund raiser.  Haven't seen a roadshow since I was 15 or 16, but I don't think this has anything to do with correlation.  Wards are still capable of putting on plays or other similar things.  I don't see correlation as having anything to do with whether or not a ward has activities.

 

I'm not sure where this comes into play with correlation (maybe it doesn't), but I think that wards used to have a lot more autonomy with their budget and could spend more on those kinds of activities. 

Does anyone know why road shows are a thing of the past?

[Calm]

November 2013:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-provides-context-gospel-topics-pages

[Jeanne]

27 minutes ago, JAHS said:

You want the SP to lie to him? The SP did not read the CES letter and those questions are not important. We can be saved without knowing the answers to those questions. If one does not believe that then he doesn't belong in the church.

What do you do in a Sunday School or Primary class?  Doesn't anybody say "If you have questions raise your hand"?  So sorry..those questions are not necessary to your salvation.  If you don't have questions there is no progression.  What Jeremy asked was important to me no matter what Jeremy's conclusion is.  They were important to ME!

Edited April 21, 2016 by Jeanne

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm not sure where this comes into play with correlation (maybe it doesn't), but I think that wards used to have a lot more autonomy with their budget and could spend more on those kinds of activities. 

Does anyone know why road shows are a thing of the past?

IIRC, money/budget.

[stemelbow]

Thanks, Calm.  I thought I had the timeline right. 

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

IIRC, money/budget.

This is true..but how I miss those days as I grew up.  Does anybody remember the RS Bazzares?

[Calm]

The only road show I was involved in was in Utah when staying with grandmother.  Neither my CA or IL ward had them.  It would have been difficult for IL to do so given the time it took to drive to church.

It seemed to me it was as much as a time issue as a money one.  We were having to go to church severaltimes a week towards the end with rehersals iirc.

[cdowis]

23 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

A bishop and a stake president do not have keys delegated to them to seal.  What I'm wondering is, if they don't have authority to seal, why would they have the authority to unseal?

There is no "unsealing" ordinance.  It is in the very nature of removing your membership record from the church.  The ordinances do not exist unless they are found in the official church records.

Awhile back there was an issue of the church having done temple work for those who were holocaust victims, and the church removed these ordinances simply by removing the records of the ordinances.  If you are baptized, it is not valid if there is no official church record.

You're welcome.

Edited April 21, 2016 by cdowis

[smac97]

On 4/21/2016 at 0:37 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

Is there a scriptural reference for revoking all ordinances? As I've stated before, I recognize the scriptural authority to blot out the names and disassociate from certain people.

The relevant scriptures probably require some explanation/exegesis.  D&C 132:7 is probably a good place to start.  Also D&C 127:7.  And D&C 107:72.  And D&C 58:18.  And Mosiah 26:29, 32.  And D&C 64:12-13.  And 3 Ne. 18:31.  And the various scriptural references to The Book of Life.

Quote

To me this means they can remove membership from the church. But nullifying ordinances is a totally different ball game.

I am persuaded that membership in the Church and the efficacy of saving ordinances are intertwined.  To lose one is to lose the other.  And the scriptures are quite clear that the Lord's servants have the authority to not only "bind" things on earth and in heaven, but also "loose" things on earth and in heaven.

Quote

A bishop and a stake president do not have keys delegated to them to seal. 

But they do have delegated authority to excommunicate, and hence to "loose."  I'm not sure the Gospel requires the type of precise symmetry you propose.  The authority to bind (seal) and to loose (excommunicate) are both found in the keys held by the Presiding High Priest.  I am persuaded that he has authority to delegate them severally, such that one set of priesthood holders may have keys to seal (sealers and general authorities) and another set may have keys to loose (judges in Israel).  This makes particular sense since meting out discipline is a necessary component of fulfilling the latter role (judge in Israel) but not is not necessary for the former (sealing).

Quote

What I'm wondering is, if they don't have authority to seal, why would they have the authority to unseal?

Because they are judges in Israel, who are tasked "to sit in judgment upon transgressors upon testimony as it shall be laid before him according to the laws, by the assistance of his counselors, whom he has chosen or will choose among the elders of the church."

I once had a client who was licensed in demolition by the State of Utah.  He was not, however, licensed as a contractor.  My current stake president is licensed as a general contractor, but he is not licensed in demolition.  These two types of authority are related in that both pertain to work done on a structure.  But they are not so interrelated that a contractor must also be licensed in demolition, or that a person licensed in demolition must also be licensed as a contractor.  One constructs, the other destructs.  These are distinct roles that do not need to be held by the same person.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 21, 2016 by smac97

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

I guess it wasn't spoken of much in my youth, and I don't live in a diverse area, I remember only one black family in my school.  There was probably more though.  It always just sat on the shelf, and I didn't look at it enough I guess, I was in la la land for sure.  I remember growing up hearing certain racist comments from people and I didn't even blink about them, I am ashamed to say.  It's so weird to me now.  Now, I am one to fight anything racist sounding.

This is one of the reasons I think the world is a much better place.  Youth are far more loving of people no matter their heritage, skin color, choice of who they love etc.   

Edited April 21, 2016 by Tacenda

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

The only road show I was involved in was in Utah when staying with grandmother.  Neither my CA or IL ward had them.  It would have been difficult for IL to do so given the time it took to drive to church.

It seemed to me it was as much as a time issue as a money one.  We were having to go to church severaltimes a week towards the end with rehersals iirc.

We didn't have that problem..we all lived close to our church house but when it came to traveling to the different wards in the Stake, that was tough.  Our stake wards were scattered all over many miles.  It was always the same teachers/parents that had to drive too. I miss the Gold and Green Ball and the Stake dance festivals the most.

 

[Duncan]

27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Is there a scriptural reference for revoking all ordinances? As I've stated before, I recognize the scriptural authority to blot out the names and disassociate from certain people. To me this means they can remove membership from the church. But nullifying ordinances is a totally different ball game.

A bishop and a stake president do not have keys delegated to them to seal.  What I'm wondering is, if they don't have authority to seal, why would they have the authority to unseal?

Correct me if I am wrong but Hugh Nibley said we really don't know who has the priesthood as we don't know what kind of lives it's bearers really live or what they actually believe. Doesn't Elijah's key factor into here somehow? that which is doen here in righteousness is sealed in heaven and not isn't ? Check out Sunstone Dec. 1990

Edited April 21, 2016 by Duncan

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

I guess it wasn't spoken of much in my youth, and I don't live in a diverse area, I remember only one black family in my school.  There was probably more though.  It always just sat on the shelf, and I didn't look at it enough I guess, I was in la la land for sure.  I remember growing up hearing certain racist comments from people and I didn't even blink about them, I am ashamed to say.  It's so weird to me now.  Now, I am one to fight anything racist sounding.  

I gather the sense of community with Church was meaningful to you as a young person.  I don't mean to say much more than, sure it was good in a way back then, but in other ways it was bad.  I don't think that puts us in a bad place now.  You must realize being disillusioned is better than being stuck in ignorance, no?  We have to find some positive in it, or we'll sink into despair. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

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

.

I love the Sagan quote and agree with it in principle, but not every question is actually an attempt to increase understanding in my experience.  Some questions are made for the purpose of manipulating others, diverting or directing others' attention mainly or even to deceive.  And some of those can be very dumb imo.