Jeremy Runnells Excommunicated

[cdowis]

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The FAIR folks voluntarily spent their own time and effort (which in the aggregate was probably rather extensive) to address Runnells' letter.  A letter which, I think, is not presented in good faith, is designed to overwhelm defenders of the Church with huge numbers of vague / short / loaded questions that touch on complex and difficult issues, and which therefore call for long, detailed answers.

"One fool can ask more questions than a hundred wise men can answer."

[flameburns623]

When a person is rebaptised and reordained, I am told that the ORIGINAL DATES of baptism and ordination show up on a newly-generated record of membership. NOT the date(s) of rebaptism/reordination.

This looks to me like a suspension more than a cancellation.

Or perhaps a "revocation". 

I was born a citizen of Missouri. I learned to drive there. I was issued a specific driver's license number, (identifying me as a lawful driver in Missouri) unique to Missouri.

When I moved to Illinois, my Missouri license was revoked, and I was given an Illinois license with a number unique to me as a driver from Illinois.

When I divorced and moved back to Missouri, my Illinois license was revoked, and my Missouri license, with the original license number, reinstated.

When I remarried and moved back to Illinois, my Missouri license was again revoked. My Illinois license was reinstated with IT'S original number.

Does any of this help move this conversation forward?

Edited April 22, 2016 by flameburns623
Typos and clarifications.

[UtahTexan]

On 4/18/2016 at 5:31 PM, flameburns623 said:

A needle, pulling thread.

Fa?

a note to follow so

[Jeanne]

30 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

When a person is rebaptised and reordained, I am told that the ORIGINAL DATES of baptism and ordination show up on a newly-generated record of membership. NOT the date(s) of rebaptism/reordination.

This looks to me like a suspension more than a cancellation.

Or perhaps a "revocation". 

I was born a citizen of Missouri. I learned to drive there. I was issued a specific driver's license number, (identifying me as a lawful driver in Missouri) unique to Missouri.

When I moved to Illinois, my Missouri license was revoked, and I was given an Illinois license with a number unique to me as a driver from Illinois.

When I divorced and moved back to Missouri, my Illinois license was revoked, and my Missouri license, with the original license number, reinstated.

When I remarried and moved back to Illinois, my Missouri license was again revoked. My Illinois license was reinstated with IT'S original number.

Does any of this help move this conversation forward?

The way I understand it is..if I want to move anywhere, you will be the guy to call!  I do understand what you are saying.

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, flameburns623 said:

When a person is rebaptised and reordained, I am told that the ORIGINAL DATES of baptism and ordination show up on a newly-generated record of membership. NOT the date(s) of rebaptism/reordination.

This looks to me like a suspension more than a cancellation.

There is also something called the "restoration of blessings" which may account for using the original dates.  Don't really know the details, but I do know that an excommunicated cannot partake of the sacrament, hold any leadership position or other calling (cannot play the piano, or sing in the choir, etc) and CANNOT pay tithing.  Of course they can contribute to the church, but it cannot be counted as tithing.

if they do attend church, it is very possible that most of the members do not know their status.  Someone had been attending church for over a year and I didn't know about them until I became a ward clerk.

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Really??? How cool!!

It's pretty fun, though it takes a good six months to write scripts, learn lines, rehearse, build costumes and sets, etc. It doesn't take much money -- I think we may have spent around US$75 in our ward the last time -- but it does require people who would rather be at the chapel painting sets than home in front of the telly binge-watching Hollywood crap.

[smac97]

6 hours ago, ALarson said:

But, upon excommunication, the temple ordinances are not "nullified", they are "suspended".  There is a difference and quite a big difference, IMO.  

Nullify:  make of no use or value; cancel out

Suspend:   temporarily prevent from continuing or being in force or effect

And the 1st presidency are the ones who approve the recommendation for excommunication and suspends the ordinances, not the Bishop or the Stake President (unless I misunderstood what SMAC posted).  And, only the 1st presidency can actually cancel (nullify) a sealing.

That last bit is not quite correct.  The First Presidency does not "approve the recommendation for excommunication."  Bishops and stake presidents, acting in council and under delegated authority from The First Presidency, conduct disciplinary councils which can result in an excommunication (not a "recommendation for excommunication").

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 23, 2016 by smac97

[Russell C McGregor]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

That's rather the advantage (and intent) of presenting huge lists of the short questions which demand long answers.  Responding to such a list becomes unwieldy and impractical.  The questioner (in this case, Mr. Runnells) then gets to crow and pat himself on the back and unilaterally declare his position to be "correct" because his exhausting list of questions (accusations, really) was not answered to his self-serving satisfaction.

Thanks,

-Smac

While those who have approximately the attention span of a goldfish can pat him on the back for how "good and concise" his list of (heh heh) "questions" is, while gleefully chortling about how "scattered" and "chaotic" are the much longer answers.

 

[ALarson]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

That last bit is not quite correct.  The First Presidency does not "approve the recommendation for excommunication."  Bishops and stake presidents, acting in council and under delegated authority from The First Presidency, conduct disciplinary councils which can result in an excommunication (not a "recommendation for excommunication").

Thanks,

-Smac

Yeah, I could have stated that better (I knew it when I wrote it too  ).  Someone else wrote that the first presidency puts their stamp of approval on it.  That's probably a better way to put it, do you agree?

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Quote

Of course there is a difference.

Nullify is the same as a sealing cancellation.  The sealing no longer exists and would have to be completely redone for it to exist again since it was cancelled.

Suspending someone's temple ordinances means they still exist and only need to be restored, not redone.

Bishops and Stake Presidents cannot cancel sealings, nor can they nullify sealings.

I've got to agree with Rongo on this one. I don't see any functional difference.

One of the interesting things that comes to light in conversations like this is how convoluted and confusing these things are. It's to the point where we have many active Mormons with a great depth of experience disagreeing on how the church works and even what it believes. To me, it seems to be a problem that there is so little unity of understanding in priesthood keys, how they work, how they are transmitted, who has authority to excommunicate (in various interpretations of the word), etc. We discuss it here on this board but if we needed to get an absolute, definitive answer to each of the questions raised, how would we seek that answer? What authority would accept the question as stated and then answer on behalf of the church? Do we have access to anyone who could and would do that? It doesn't seem to be. The CES letter illustrates that gap between regular people like me and the leadership who supposedly has all the answers. Yet we have no accepted method or process of voicing those questions or concerns in a way that will get a definitive answer. So we chatter on and on but nothing is ever really resolved.

I find it interesting that in the early days of the church one of the main purposes of the D&C was to act as a "handbook" of church governance. It is canonized and scriptural. Now, changes happen all the time that have theological implications yet we never accept these things by common consent. They are never added to scripture. They are merely added to handbooks that are only accessible to a limited number of people. Things have sure changed. 

[consiglieri]

17 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

If you think that was witty, you're half right.

Questioning the bona fides of a habitual troll is not an instance of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Sorry.

 

I wish I could always be right like you, Russ.

[Rico]

Kevin,

My response to your comment at:
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67444-jeremy-runnells-excommunicated/?do=findComment&comment=1209617284

Quote

Kevin:  And I learned long ago that no matter how much legit scripture I use, if a person misunderstands my arguments, or simply refuses to take them seriously, all they need to do is ignore me or say, "So what?"

Towards the end of my response to you, I quoted Luke 11:10-13 to show that even by the standards of Jesus, an evil father knows how to give good gifts to his children.  Even an evil father gives what his child asks for.  Runnells asked Pres. Ivins "What error or mistakes in the CES Letter, or on the website, is incorrect so I can publicly correct it?”  Clearly, it was Ivins' obligation to give what Runnells asked, and he failed.  Miserably.

And your response after that?  My guess is... "so what?"

Quote

Kevin:  Of course an appendage is part of the greater whole.  That is exactly my point. 

Nope that was not your point when you said "the CES is not Church."  You're only copying my argument.

Quote

Kevin:  Labeling my arguments as "unofficial" is just that, "labeling" rather than responding to them or acknowledging them.  That sort of thought characterizes Position 2 of the 9 Position Perry Scheme of Cognitive and Ethical Growth.

I did not say your arguments are unofficial.  I have to ask you "Are you in a position of authority to define what is and is not the Church?" precisely because you are asserting the CES is not Church.  The Church legally mandated the creation and existence of the CES.  But what about you?  Do you have a legal mandate to say what you're saying about the CES?  Read it again, that's not labelling.  That is called "asking for evidence".

Quote

Kevin:  My essays were available, just as many other responses were.   While Runnells claimed that he would personally respond to me, he punted and let his friend Jonny Stephenson do so for him.

As I've said, even if Runnells was a full-blown apostate, there were things the Church should have or should not have done against him.  Both the CES Director and Pres. Ivins DUCKED his questions.  However, you knowing that Runnells was in error, you should have gone to Pres. Ivins and laid down your accusation against him.  Why?  Because that is what the Lord said in the scriptures.

Here let me explain to you:  Timothy was the first bishop of Ephesus.  He was called by no other than the Apostle Paul.  And Paul gave him several instructions regarding the work of overseeing the Church.  The most relevant instruction to our discussion is this:

"Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses." (1 Timothy 5:19)

A Bishop sits as Judge in the Church.  It is he who is mandated to receive or hear accusations and complaints.  When an Elder is accused of wrongdoing, it has to be established through two or more witnesses, and the Bishop only receives or hears the accusation.  He does not accuse the Elder, otherwise some higher authority is called to sit as Judge between him and the accused.  

Also, there is no such thing as "secret witnesses".  The most despicable court trial recorded in the Bible is the one by the Sanhedrin council that tried and condemned the Lord Jesus to death.  Numerous scholars have written about how irregular this proceeding was.  Yet no matter how evil that council was, it still managed to produce witnesses, albeit false ones, to confront and accuse the Lord Jesus in person.  They did not use secret witnesses.  This is mandated by the Law of Moses.  

A council cannot convict an accused to death unless the crime is established by two or more witnesses (Deuteronomy 17:6).  This principle is upheld in the Church because the Lord himself taught it in cases where excommunication is warranted (Matthew 18:16-17) 

Was this principle of witnesses obeyed in the disciplinary court that tried Runnells?

The trial began with Pres. Ivins turning away the interpreter Runnells brought, subsitituting him with a church-provided interpreter.  This shows that in this court, Pres. Ivins decides important matters.  Therefore, he is the Judge.

Shortly after invoking the name of God, the council began with Pres. Ivins reading his list of accusations against Runnells.  Therefore, he is not only the Judge, but the Accuser as well.  Can you see what is wrong with this picture?  Because there are no witnesses to accuse Runnells, it was the Judge who acted as Accuser.  How then can a Judge find anything wrong with his own accusation?  Will he intentionally contradict himself?

After Pres Ivins ended reading his list of accusations, he  concluded with these words: "It is my opinion that you have repeatedly acted in clear and open deliberate public opposition to the church and it’s leaders."  That was his judgement.  And then, he asked Runnells for his statement.

Runnells was already accused and judged by both the Accuser and Judge before he could say anything to defend himself.  Runnells apparently didn't see this coming because it was a fast, curved pitch.

Even Caiaphas did not directly accuse the Lord Jesus, but through witnesses, although his kangaroo court had already premeditated the death penalty on the Lord.  Is it unfair to say that the court Ivins presided was worse than Caiaphas?

Kevin, and the other Mormon apologists who keep saying they have answered Runnells, why didn't you all volunteer to be witnesses against Runnells in that court?  You knew this council was coming, didn't you?  And even if there was no council against Runnells, you could all have gone to Pres. Ivins and asked for one.  So why didn't you?

Apparently, you neither know the scriptures nor the power of God.

The worst thing Pres. Ivins did after he rendered his "opinion" was to bear his testimony of Jesus.  This is clearly using the name of God in vain.  Jesus has nothing to do with that court when all it did was violate many of his teachings.

[JAHS]

19 minutes ago, Rico said:

Was this principle of witnesses obeyed in the disciplinary court that tried Runnells?

The other members of the council who were aware of his activities acted as the accusers. Also, at a point during the court proceedings the accused has the opportunity to bring forth witnesses to testify on his behalf. Runnels did not allow the court to proceed to the witness stage. When he realized that they weren't going to answer his questions (which I am sure he knew they would not do) he handed over his resignation and stormed off in a huff. I don't think he even had any witnesses there to testify for him. 

 

[Russell C McGregor]

6 hours ago, Rico said:

Kevin,

My response to your comment at:
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67444-jeremy-runnells-excommunicated/?do=findComment&comment=1209617284

Towards the end of my response to you, I quoted Luke 11:10-13 to show that even by the standards of Jesus, an evil father knows how to give good gifts to his children.  Even an evil father gives what his child asks for.  Runnells asked Pres. Ivins "What error or mistakes in the CES Letter, or on the website, is incorrect so I can publicly correct it?”  Clearly, it was Ivins' obligation to give what Runnells asked, and he failed.  Miserably.

What an extraordinarily arrogant expectation that is. And your accusation is baseless.

Mister Runnells had no intention of amending "errors or mistakes in the CES letter." Others have pointed many errors out to him, and he has dismissed them. His "request" was not really a request at all; it was an attempt to get control of the proceedings and run them according to his own agenda, something he had absolutely no right to do.

It was also a very standard bit of anti-Mormon posturing.

President Ivins had absolutely no obligation to let Mister Runnells take over the meeting. To assume that he did, shows complete ignorance of the nature and purpose of a Church Disciplinary Council.

The purpose of the DC was not to discuss the content of Mister Runnells's magnum opus. It was to determine whether his behaviour was consistent with continued membership in the Church of Jesus Christ. President Ivins was exactly right to focus on that issue, and not allow himself to be distracted by Mister Runnells's posturing and grandstanding.

 

 

6 hours ago, Rico said:

Was this principle of witnesses obeyed in the disciplinary court that tried Runnells?

The trial began with Pres. Ivins turning away the interpreter Runnells brought, subsitituting him with a church-provided interpreter.  This shows that in this court, Pres. Ivins decides important matters.  Therefore, he is the Judge.

Shortly after invoking the name of God, the council began with Pres. Ivins reading his list of accusations against Runnells.  Therefore, he is not only the Judge, but the Accuser as well.

Eh?

In a criminal trial, when the clerk of the court reads the list of charges against the defendant, is the clerk then the accuser?

President Ivins didn't originate the accusations; they came from published documents written by Mister Runnells himself. Others may have, and almost certainly did, report them to President Ivins.

6 hours ago, Rico said:

 Can you see what is wrong with this picture?  Because there are no witnesses to accuse Runnells, it was the Judge who acted as Accuser.  How then can a Judge find anything wrong with his own accusation?  Will he intentionally contradict himself?

Given that Mister Runnells was accused of things he wrote and published under his own name, to what do you expect witnesses to testify?

6 hours ago, Rico said:

After Pres Ivins ended reading his list of accusations, he  concluded with these words: "It is my opinion that you have repeatedly acted in clear and open deliberate public opposition to the church and it’s leaders."  That was his judgement.  And then, he asked Runnells for his statement.

Runnells was already accused and judged by both the Accuser and Judge before he could say anything to defend himself.  Runnells apparently didn't see this coming because it was a fast, curved pitch.

Even Caiaphas did not directly accuse the Lord Jesus, but through witnesses, although his kangaroo court had already premeditated the death penalty on the Lord.  Is it unfair to say that the court Ivins presided was worse than Caiaphas?

Yes, since you asked, it is unfair.

While we're on the subject, it's also malicious, idiotic and utterly ridiculous.

6 hours ago, Rico said:

Kevin, and the other Mormon apologists who keep saying they have answered Runnells, why didn't you all volunteer to be witnesses against Runnells in that court?  You knew this council was coming, didn't you?  And even if there was no council against Runnells, you could all have gone to Pres. Ivins and asked for one.  So why didn't you?

What particular knowledge did they have of Mister Runnells's actions that would be of assistance to the Disciplinary Council? Were they privy to facts that President Ivins could not get any other way?

6 hours ago, Rico said:

Apparently, you neither know the scriptures nor the power of God.

Mere pious posturing.

6 hours ago, Rico said:

The worst thing Pres. Ivins did after he rendered his "opinion" was to bear his testimony of Jesus.  This is clearly using the name of God in vain.

Your accusation is false.

6 hours ago, Rico said:

 Jesus has nothing to do with that court when all it did was violate many of his teachings.

"So many?" But you've only cited one, a parable that Jesus gave in order to teach that God answers prayers.

[flameburns623]

FWIIW, I personally never had any interest in the disciplinary court. I think Runnell's behavor just in the month ot two I have been aware of him, was consistent with that of a person who had long since stopped valueing his Chuch membership except to pursue his own ends.

Assuming the most outlandish possibility, that Jeremy Runnells realized in December or January (when they began jockeying for a good date to hold a Bishop's Court),  that he had crossed a line: THAT was the last-minute opportunity to back off and fall silent.

Pull the CES Letter out of circulation. Shut down the website. Provide assurances of confidentiality to his Stake President and engage in quiet, written exchanges. Disengage the ex-Mo community and request privacy. Contact some other LDS apologetics sources on the QT. Maybe even suspend his Facebook page.

And commence praying and reading and living as if he hoped to regain his testimony.

He might still have faced disciplinary action. Formal suspension, disfellowshipping, perhaps excommunication, for the harm done already.

Or not.

But if being an LDS Church member were meaningful, then J. Runnells should have stopped dissing the Church publicly. 

Or . . .just resign and walk away, in December or January, and keep doing the CES Letter thing as a nonmember.Don't play this whole Peyton Place game to it's conclusion.

How the Court itself was conducted once all the machinery was in motion is not my judgement call.

I did take the Stake President at his word and was bothered that an ASL interpreter wasn't planned to be permitted nor provided. I criticised some of the reaction here to what we thought was going to stand as an offensive decision.

But the SP did the right thing regarding the ASL 'Terp. We only belatedly got that word because of Runnells pirated video. And it is hard to know what else President Ivens knew that we don't.

Or what would have happened had Runnells allowed the Court to go forward past the point he resigned 

[VideoGameJunkie]

Jeremy makes money off of the CES Letter. There is a donation option on his site.

[Abulafia]

Whilst recognising the institutional church has a right to maintain it's own boundaries.   And whilst also recognising that from a historical standpoint we might ask*wIll the real Jesus stand up* - I think that a close look at what Jesus actually is recorded as teaching and how he reacted to his crucifiers might tell us something about how an organisation might more  closely folllw his example when dealing with perceived enemies.

He tells Peter to forgive an infinite number of times (Matt 18), he asks his father to forgive those who crucify him, because they know not what they do.

At the time he himself was being shunned, and thrown out of his own communities by both local and Jerusalem centred institutional leaders.  Excommunicating and shunning followers from within his own community during his public ministry does not appear to occur. (Judas remained)

There are suggestions to not pick out any perceived chaff prematurely, but let all grow together.

He warned that when one judges another, one should expect the same judgement in return.

 

 

 

 

 

[JAHS]

40 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Whilst recognising the institutional church has a right to maintain it's own boundaries.   And whilst also recognising that from a historical standpoint we might ask*wIll the real Jesus stand up* - I think that a close look at what Jesus actually is recorded as teaching and how he reacted to his crucifiers might tell us something about how an organisation might more  closely folllw his example when dealing with perceived enemies.

He tells Peter to forgive an infinite number of times (Matt 18), he asks his father to forgive those who crucify him, because they know not what they do.

At the time he himself was being shunned, and thrown out of his own communities by both local and Jerusalem centred institutional leaders.  Excommunicating and shunning followers from within his own community during his public ministry does not appear to occur. (Judas remained)

There are suggestions to not pick out any perceived chaff prematurely, but let all grow together.

He warned that when one judges another, one should expect the same judgement in return.

 

 

 

 

 

Jesus gave His Apostles the authority to govern His Church and told them:

 ¶ Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matthew 18:15–17)

Why would he tell them they could loose someone on earth if it was not proper to do so?  Calling a man a heathen and a publican is equal to excommunication or to be cast out of the Church, or dropped from fellowship in the brotherhood of Christ.

 

[VideoGameJunkie]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

Whilst recognising the institutional church has a right to maintain it's own boundaries.   And whilst also recognising that from a historical standpoint we might ask*wIll the real Jesus stand up* - I think that a close look at what Jesus actually is recorded as teaching and how he reacted to his crucifiers might tell us something about how an organisation might more  closely folllw his example when dealing with perceived enemies.

He tells Peter to forgive an infinite number of times (Matt 18), he asks his father to forgive those who crucify him, because they know not what they do.

At the time he himself was being shunned, and thrown out of his own communities by both local and Jerusalem centred institutional leaders.  Excommunicating and shunning followers from within his own community during his public ministry does not appear to occur. (Judas remained)

There are suggestions to not pick out any perceived chaff prematurely, but let all grow together.

He warned that when one judges another, one should expect the same judgement in return.

 

 

 

 

 

You must not have paid attention to what Jesus was telling Joseph Smith in Doctrine and Covenants. 

[Abulafia]

Quote

You must not have paid attention to what Jesus was telling Joseph Smith in Doctrine and Covenants. 

You are right of course.  Given that Jesus didn't appear to leave any first hand written records, all we can rely on are pictures of him from secondary sources, which either come by possible revelation (Paul, Joseph Smith) or perhaps from eye witness accounts as remembered by later followers. (Gospels)  

Can we at least recognise that we see only a Jesus filtered through the imperfect minds of others?

[Abulafia]

 

Quote

 

Jesus gave His Apostles the authority to govern His Church and told them:

 ¶ Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matthew 18:15–17)

Why would he tell them they could loose someone on earth if it was not proper to do so?  Calling a man a heathen and a publican is equal to excommunication or to be cast out of the Church, or dropped from fellowship in the brotherhood of Christ.

 

 

In Chapter 18, Matthew appears to be combining the Q source with Mark to produce a text that applies to his specific and more organised community which is in tension with the Synagogue but still respects it (Matthew's Jesus has his followers respecting the law and the leaders whilst also condemning them).

 

For Matthew, Peter is an important leader, and writing at this late stage (80ce approx) he appears to be trying to pave a way between a developing community and Jesus authentic teachings.  Note how he changes Mark which appears to be the source for his binding and loosing teaching.

 

Quote

 

²⁷ Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, “Who do people say I am?”

²⁸ They replied, “Some say John the Baptist;^(U) others say Elijah;^(V) and still others, one of the prophets.”

²⁹ “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

Peter answered, “You are the Messiah.”^(W)

³⁰ Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.^(X)

 

There's no hint in Mark of the developing church structure to which Matthew refers.

I might want to argue that 'little children' in Matthew 18 can be both children and also followers weak in faith.  As such, Matthew here aims his darts at those strong in faith.  The leaders, the teachers - not the struggling member.

 

Quote

 

⁶ “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

 

 
I would also want to argue against shunning or excommunication on the basis of a label of heathen and tax collector.  This may be the author's wit.  Who knows.  But Jesus is clearly recorded in the same text as having chosen a disciple who is indeed a tax collector, and who associated with pubicans and sinners.  

As such, the emergent community was to go out and teach such people.  Perhaps that part just means to treat them as gentiles and worthy of teaching and love! 

[Rico]

Russell,

Quote

Russell:  What an extraordinarily arrogant expectation that is. And your accusation is baseless

.No it isn't.  Read and BELIEVE Luke 11:10-13.  Even evil fathers know how to give good gifts to their children.  How?  Because they give what is being asked of them.  This is clearly taught by the Lord Jesus.  Wasn't Pres. Ivins asked a question, and wasn't he supposed to answer and correct Runnells doctrinal errors?  But he simply refused to say a word even after three years.  Therefore he is like a father who fails to show his confused and wayward son what is wrong with his ideas.

In your case, instead of believing what the Lord Jesus said, you choose to defend Pres. Ivins' indefensible failure to act.  This is the true reason why you think this is arrogant and baseless.  Kevin can tell you exactly why you reason this way, and if you fall under Position 2 of the 9 Position Perry Scheme of Cognitive and Ethical Growth. 

Quote

Russell:  Mister Runnells had no intention of amending "errors or mistakes in the CES letter." Others have pointed many errors out to him, and he has dismissed them. His "request" was not really a request at all; it was an attempt to get control of the proceedings and run them according to his own agenda, something he had absolutely no right to do.

Even if Runnells was a full-blown apostate according to your wise and knowledgeable imagination, that fact is yet to be established by the court.  That is the court's mandate.  You have no mandate to prejudge the accused.  Even a fool when he shuts his mouth is considered wise (Proverbs 17:28).

Quote

Russell:  President Ivins had absolutely no obligation to let Mister Runnells take over the meeting. To assume that he did, shows complete ignorance of the nature and purpose of a Church Disciplinary Council

.Strawman.

Quote

Russell:  The purpose of the DC was not to discuss the content of Mister Runnells's magnum opus.

Then how will they find out if what he is saying opposes the church?  Because you, Kevin, and the rest of the all-knowing sages here simply say so?  He is to be convicted by witnesses who were not present in that council?

That's it, right?

Quote

Russell:   It was to determine whether his behaviour was consistent with continued membership in the Church of Jesus Christ. President Ivins was exactly right to focus on that issue, and not allow himself to be distracted by Mister Runnells's posturing and grandstanding.

And this is to be done through secret witnesses by remote control.  Right?

Quote

Russell:  In a criminal trial, when the clerk of the court reads the list of charges against the defendant, is the clerk then the accuser?

No, and that's why Pres. Ivins should have assigned a clerk to read the accusations.  Therefore he not only acted as Judge and Accuser... he also acted as clerk.  

Quote

Russell:  President Ivins didn't originate the accusations; they came from published documents written by Mister Runnells himself. Others may have, and almost certainly did, report them to President Ivins

.Then they should have been called to present their evidence against Runnells.  Why did Pres. Ivins fail to bring them?  Listen again to his "list",  he is actually presenting "evidences" taken from Runnells' website.  Whose duty is it anyway to present evidence, is it the Judge or is it the accusing party?

After the opening prayer, Pres. Ivins began the session by stating its agenda: "The reason for this council is that you are reported to be in apostasy, in that you have repeatedly acted in clear, open, and deliberate opposition to the church or its leaders."  So far so good.

After that, he should have brought out the witnesses to bring their evidences.  If this was a case of disobedience against Pres. Ivins himself, then he cannot sit there as Judge.  He must accuse.  Someone else must adjudicate between him and Runnells.  That then would be his chance to bring out his evidence.

Quote

Russell:  Given that Mister Runnells was accused of things he wrote and published under his own name, to what do you expect witnesses to testify?

If you are going to follow the teachings of the Lord Jesus, you cannot do it your way.  It has to be done His way.  You must present witnesses against the accused.  These should bring their evidences against him.  If they fail to bring anything in the court, then the accused cannot be convicted.  That is the Lord's way.

That's why Kevin and the other Mormon apologists were failures too.  They interacted with Runnells, so they were in the best position to present themselves and their documentary evidences to that court.  But they did not.  All they ever do is visit forums to testify and boast, "we've answered all his questions!"

You will have a short stay on this board if you don't clean up the attitude.

 

[Russell C McGregor]

8 hours ago, Rico said:

 

 

Quote

 

poster and inflammatory- name-calling -post removed

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

Interestingly, Jeremy continues to call the surreptitious recording that he made of the disciplinary council 'leaked' even though he has now posted it on his own website. I think he and I may have functionally different definitions of what this word means. From the OED: 'to become known in spite of efforts at concealment'. I have a sincere question for Jeremy that maybe he'd like to answer: what 'efforts at concealment' did he make regarding this video?

[cdowis]

Rico,

You question has been asked and answered.  You are repeating yourself so that you can ignore the answer again?

 

Edited April 25, 2016 by cdowis