Jeremy Runnells Excommunicated

[Calm]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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?

Because they are the ones to determine worthiness to be a member as well as participate in temple ordinances? (i don't know if this is the answer, but it seems logical to me)

[Tacenda]

36 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.

 

My fault for saying what I did, maybe since I'm older and have older children, I tend to think they aren't there as much.  I'm sure there are fun things still.  My bad...  But correlation will kill off some of the side things that I remember being fun too.  For instance, my ward putting on a play about the pioneers crossing the plains.  I played one of my relatives as a child, pretty awesome.  Do wards do things like this still?  I just don't know.  And I've derailed enough so if I want to discuss further I'd better make a new topic.

Edited April 21, 2016 by Tacenda

[HappyJackWagon]

12 minutes ago, cdowis said:

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.

 

I don't agree. A saving ordinance doesn't receive it's saving power from bureaucratic records.

[Calm]

3 hours 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.

Gospel Essays were from the Church.

[mnn727]

39 minutes ago, Gray said:

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

Because they were lame?

[consiglieri]

1 hour 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.

I think you are stake president material.

No doubt about it.

[JAHS]

29 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

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!

Of course your questions are important to you, I would like to know the answers too, but you can still get to heaven without knowing the answers to all of them. And there's a big difference between asking questions in Sunday School and broadcasting your questions to the world and complaining about it when you don't get the answers you want. I am confident that many of those questions have been answered already to the best of our ability so far. People need more patience and faith to wait for the answers.

[consiglieri]

43 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

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!

The LDS Church has two categories of questions.

Those that may be asked, and those that may not be asked.

The questions that may not be asked are the ones for which the Church has no good answers.

Any questions?

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Of course your questions are important to you, I would like to know the answers too, but you can still get to heaven without knowing the answers to all of them. And there's a big difference between asking questions in Sunday School and broadcasting your questions to the world and complaining about it when you don't get the answers you want. I am confident that many of those questions have been answered already to the best of our ability so far. People need more patience and faith to wait for the answers.

I thought I had a lot of the answers before the essays..and I was wrong. 

[JAHS]

6 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I think you are stake president material.

No doubt about it.

Thank you. I appreciate the insult...I mean compliment..I mean...................

[juliann]

1 hour 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. 

I was in a student ward at the time but I still remember the very acute sense that women had suffered a loss even as it was fully supported by them. It was also painful to lose the "MIA."  We did a skit and one of my lines was "I know the MIA is true!"  It is hard to judge correlation when local wards are so varied and I think what really makes the difference is how many Mormons are around and how close they are.  I think what this does demonstrate is that it takes a generation or more to see the results of large scale social/policy changes. Especially when the culture is changing through generations.

As for "answer my questions!" I have to wonder what those who actually think he doesn't have as many answers as there are would think of someone who wanted answers from a company or a government official and got what they had, wasn't satisfied,  and then claimed he wasn't answered at all because the president of the company or country didn't respond to him. 

 

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

The LDS Church has two categories of questions.

Those that may be asked, and those that may not be asked.

The questions that may not be asked are the ones for which the Church has no good answers.

Any questions?

No questions..I aim to seek the Heavens with no questions.

[rongo]

59 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.

Cf. Jesus giving authority to the apostles to "seal" and "loose" on earth and in heaven.

If Jesus authorized apostles to delegate this authority to local leaders, then they have it. If he didn't, then they don't. So the $64,000 question for those who believe in him is whether or not he has granted the authority to delegate or not. This question must be settled by each individual for himself. 

[HappyJackWagon]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

Gospel Essays were from the Church.

I don't think anyone has ever said the church never talks about any of the issues raised by his questions. Runnell's asked the questions. Nobody responded to Runnells. There was no communication.

If you asked me a question would you accept it as an answer if I went onto my blog and wrote generally about the topic and never responded to you?

I'll add that the essays acknowledge the factual basis of many of his questions without giving answers about why?

For example: Why did Joseph marry other men's wives? The essay acknowledges polyandry and then states something to the effect of "we don't understand why polyandry was practiced." Is that the answer? Lousy answer.

Another example: Why did Joseph say he translated the Book of Abraham from the papyrus written by Abraham's own hand? Answer; We don't know what Joseph meant by "translate". Lousy answer.

So while the essays may address some of the issues, they don't really supply many answers, and certainly not to the person who asked them.

 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

 

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?

How do you know that hadn't already happened at another time?

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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.

Thanks. Everyone seems to accept that it started as he says it did so I wondered.

I wouldn't find it appropriate to release the name either, but I find it interesting that it hasn't been released considering other names have been released by other people. 

[smac97]

On 4/21/2016 at 1:13 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't agree. A saving ordinance doesn't receive it's saving power from bureaucratic records.

I know it's a popular trend among disaffected members of the Church to attempt to bifurcate "the Church" from God and His saving ordinances.  Hence we have people like Kate Kelly declaring (after her excommunication): "I am, and have always been, a faithful Mormon."  Hence we have Denver Snuffer characterizing his excommunication as a "non issue" (or "non event" or something like that).  But to reduce the Church of Jesus Christ to a mere custodian of "bureaucratic records" is simply wrong.  See, for example, these observations in The Encyclopedia of Mormonism's entry for "Book of Life" (emphases added):

Quote

In a figurative sense, the book of life is the complete record of one's life, the sum total of thoughts, words, and deeds written in the soul, of which the Lord will take account in the day of judgment (Rev. 20:12; Alma 12:14).

The scriptures also speak of a book of life, or "the Lamb's book of life," as "the record…kept in heaven" (D&C 128:7) in which are written both the names and deeds of the faithful. It is also the heavenly register of those who inherit eternal life (Heb. 12:23; Alma 5:58;D&C 76:68), "the book of the names of the sanctified, even them of the celestial world" (D&C 88:2; cf. Mal. 3:16-17).

In the Bible, the phrase "book of the living" appears first in Psalm 69:28,and the notion of a heavenly ledger is alluded to often (Ex. 32:32-33; Dan. 7:10;12:1; Isa. 4:3;65:6; see also Phil. 4:3; Rev. 3:5;13:8;21:27). Names of faithful Saints may be recorded in the book of life conditionally while they are in mortality (Luke 10:20) or "from the foundation of the world" (Rev. 17:8), but may be "blotted out" because of unrepented transgression (Rev. 3:5;22:19; Alma 5:57; D&C 85:5, 11). Ultimately, only the names of those who qualify for eternal life remain written or "sealed" (TPJS, p. 9) in the Lamb's book of life.

Latter-day Saints believe that essential items written in the "books yet to be opened" are linked to proper Church records, including those of essential gospel ordinances performed by priesthood authority for individuals and attested by authorized witnesses. In ancient covenant ceremonies, the names of the righteous were solemnly recorded, thus numbering them among "the living" (e.g.,Num. 1:1-46; Mosiah 6:1-2). What is properly recorded on earth is recorded in heaven (D&C 128:7-8). Final sealing in the Lamb's book requires, further, the approval of the Holy Spirit of Promise (D&C 132:19). 

The records of the Church matter.  A lot.  The authority of the Church to both "bind" and "loose" matters.  A lot.  Saving ordinances must be 1) performed and 2) recorded and 3) approved by the Holy Spirit of Promise.  We cannot skip over any of them.  And we cannot disregard #2 by dismissing it as merely "bureaucratic records."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[rongo]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

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?

Keep going with the thought exercise about what you would have done differently.

After treating him with Dignity and Kindness™, would you have 

a) told him "it's all good" and dismissed the council, with no action

or

b) continued with the council and administered formal discipline if he remained unrepentant and defiant?

That's the real question about how you would have done things better. Not whether or not you are a better Dale Carnegie than he, but whether you would have done what needed to be done.

Edited April 21, 2016 by rongo

[JAHS]

7 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I thought I had a lot of the answers before the essays..and I was wrong. 

And yet we can still be saved in heaven regardless of what the answers are or were to those questions. The Gospel is so much bigger than some of those unknown or misunderstood issues. If we focus and obsess to much on those unanswered or incorrectly answered questions we run the risk of throwing out everything and giving up. 

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I know it's a popular trend among disaffected members of the Church to attempt to bifurcate "the Church" from God and His saving ordinances.  Hence we have people like Kate Kelly declaring (after her excommunication): "I am, and have always been, a faithful Mormon."  Hence we have Denver Snuffer characterizing his excommunication as a "non issue" (or "non event" or something like that).  But to reduce the Church of Jesus Christ to a mere custodian of "bureaucratic records" is simply wrong.  See, for example, these observations in The Encyclopedia of Mormonism's entry for "Book of Life" (emphases added):

The records of the Church matter.  A lot.  The authority of the Church to both "bind" and "loose" matters.  A lot.  Saving ordinances must be 1) performed and 2) recorded and 3) approved by the Holy Spirit of Promise.  We cannot skip over any of them.  And we cannot disregard #2 by dismissing it as merely "bureaucratic records."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I understand your argument but do you really believe that if somehow the church loses record of my ordinances that when I die those ordinances will not have any effect? I don't believe that for a second.

 

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't think anyone has ever said the church never talks about any of the issues raised by his questions. Runnell's asked the questions. Nobody responded to Runnells. There was no communication.

If you asked me a question would you accept it as an answer if I went onto my blog and wrote generally about the topic and never responded to you?

I'll add that the essays acknowledge the factual basis of many of his questions without giving answers about why?

For example: Why did Joseph marry other men's wives? The essay acknowledges polyandry and then states something to the effect of "we don't understand why polyandry was practiced." Is that the answer? Lousy answer.

Another example: Why did Joseph say he translated the Book of Abraham from the papyrus written by Abraham's own hand? Answer; We don't know what Joseph meant by "translate". Lousy answer.

So while the essays may address some of the issues, they don't really supply many answers, and certainly not to the person who asked them.

 

I think it is different to demand answers from church leaders and then reject answers from church leaders even when they aren't personal.

And not many answers is not equivalent to none.

What would be the difference if it was personal?  What was he expecting for his historical questions that would be significantly different than what was provided in the essays?  Did he just want the opinions of the people he asked or was he asking for substance, documentation when it came to historical issues?

[smac97]

On 4/21/2016 at 1:55 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

I understand your argument but do you really believe that if somehow the church loses record of my ordinances that when I die those ordinances will not have any effect? I don't believe that for a second.

I'm not sure of the particulars.  I was speaking of general principles.  I have an acquaintance who is a bishop and is dealing with a member of his ward who was excommunicated in a previous ward some years ago, but the record of the excommunication was never sent to (or received by) the Membership Records Department in Salt Lake.  My friend called that department, which advised that he needs to create a record of the excommunication and submit it to the Church.

Also, I have a great-great-grandfather who was a sealer and patriarch in the colonies in Mexico.  He died, and during the Mexican Revolution his surviving spouse took all of his documents (letters, sealing records, patriarchal blessing records, etc.) and buried them prior to fleeing the country.  My father, who is writing a biography of the GGF, has told me that he has been repeatedly contacted by the Church asking if he is aware of the location of these records, as the Church is either missing records of these ordinances altogether, or else only has copies of the records.

Now why do you suppose that the Church goes to such significant lengths to maintain its records?  I submit that this is because it has a scriptural mandate to keep records, because "essential items written in the 'books yet to be opened' are linked to proper Church records, including those of essential gospel ordinances," and because Saving ordinances must be 1) performed and 2) recorded and 3) approved by the Holy Spirit of Promise.  We cannot skip over any of them.  And we cannot disregard #2 by dismissing it as merely "bureaucratic records."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 21, 2016 by smac97

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think it is different to demand answers from church leaders and then reject answers from church leaders even when they aren't personal.

And not many answers is not equivalent to none.

What would be the difference if it was personal?  What was he expecting for his historical questions that would be significantly different than what was provided in the essays?  Did he just want the opinions of the people he asked or was he asking for substance, documentation when it came to historical issues?

This is how he phrased it Sunday:

"Hopefully tonight, the church will answer the questions that they’ve been ignoring the last three years."

[Russell C McGregor]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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".

I see that your Sith Lord, Darth Runnells, has taught you well. Why ask a question if you think you already have the answer?

CALL FOR REFERENCES that Bishops and Stake Presidents don't have the keys to nullify Temple ordinances.

 

4 hours 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?

Your "why" begs the question.

 

[Calm]

JAHS, Runnells reports in the council according to the transcript that the SP did read the CES letter upon request.

[HappyJackWagon]

22 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

I see that your Sith Lord, Darth Runnells, has taught you well. Why ask a question if you think you already have the answer?

CALL FOR REFERENCES that Bishops and Stake Presidents don't have the keys to nullify Temple ordinances.

 

Your "why" begs the question.

 

Keys are bestowed by the laying on of hands. CFR that this happens and those keys are delegated to bishops and SP's

.

Edited April 21, 2016 by HappyJackWagon