More From Jeremy Runnells

[Guest]

On April 25, 2016 at 3:12 PM, ALarson said:

I've seen this posted elsewhere, but haven't seen it posted here.  It appears to be a record of the meetings, etc., between Jeremy and his leaders from the beginning.

There is an audio recording of his first meeting with the Stake President and so on.  I don't know if I'll listen to it, but maybe some here will be interested:

http://cesletter.org/resign/

(I hope it's ok to post that link, if not the mods can remove it.)

.

 

Did he tell the Stake President or High Counsel, that hey we're being recorded. If not it as an illegal and immoral act. Maybe it shows the wisdom in the action taken against him. It certainly shows a lack of decorum and wisdom on his part. Sounds like a final finger in the eye or raised as a final jester. 

[Guest]

On April 25, 2016 at 4:54 PM, consiglieri said:

"Meanwhile, ostriches stick heads in sand.  Film at eleven."

Hove you heard anything on your status my friend. The time has come and past. Look forward to your wit and wisdom in your coming thread, 

 

[flameburns623]

59 minutes ago, Pa Pa said:

Did he tell the Stake President or High Counsel, that hey we're being recorded. If not it as an illegal and immoral act. Maybe it shows the wisdom in the action taken against him. It certainly shows a lack of decorum and wisdom on his part. Sounds like a final finger in the eye or raised as a final jester. 

Utah is a single-party consent state, so not illegal. 

[smac97]

On 4/27/2016 at 9:18 PM, flameburns623 said:

Utah is a single-party consent state, so not illegal. 

Quite so.  Not illegal.  But plainly dishonorable.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

Utah is a single-party consent state, so not illegal. 

Forgive, just immoral and tasteless. 

[Analytics]

19 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Standard practice or not, it seems to me that signatures of all present on a single, original copy attests to their mutual agreement that the proceedings be kept confidential.

Assuming there are nine high councilors in the room in addition to Runnells, the stake president and, probably, a clerk taking minutes (not to mention the ASL interpreter), are you saying that each individual would have to sign his name on 12 separate pieces of paper to make sure each and every person had a copy of the agreement with original signatures in order to live up to "standard practice"?

 

The lawyers on the forum could answer this question better than I.  At a minimum though, I'd expect them all to be given a photocopy of the signed document. 

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

Quite so.  Not illegal.  But plainly dishonorable.

Thanks,

-Smac

If there is a signed agreement of confidentiality, is it actionable?

[Analytics]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

Quite so.  Not illegal.  But plainly dishonorable.

Thanks,

-Smac

Surely you'll just dismiss me as having my moral compass off, but it isn't clear to me why it is dishonorable.  My question is why did the proceeding need not to be recorded?  If the Church has a legitimate reason for not wanting somebody to record it then that's one thing.  But if we are talking about allowing somebody recording their own excommunication, why not?  I can understand why the penitent needs to have the right to privacy, but why does the Church need to be secretive about the way it treats apostates?  It just makes it look like it is trying to hide things, which gives me the knee-jerk reaction that they shouldn't be hidden.  So what is more dishonorable: being complicit in hiding something that shouldn't be hidden, or breaking a promise and shining the light on something that shouldn't be hidden?

 

 

[Analytics]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If there is a signed agreement of confidentiality, is it actionable?

I would think that depends upon whether there are damages.

 

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

Surely you'll just dismiss me as having my moral compass off, but it isn't clear to me why it is dishonorable.  My question is why did the proceeding need not to be recorded?  If the Church has a legitimate reason for not wanting somebody to record it then that's one thing.  But if we are talking about allowing somebody recording their own excommunication, why not?  I can understand why the penitent needs to have the right to privacy, but why does the Church need to be secretive about the way it treats apostates?  It just makes it look like it is trying to hide things, which gives me the knee-jerk reaction that they shouldn't be hidden.  So what is more dishonorable: being complicit in hiding something that shouldn't be hidden, or breaking a promise and shining the light on something that shouldn't be hidden?

 

 

Names of innocent parties may be mention in connection with the council.  A spouse, child, neighbor, etc.  Do you want their names being made public? 

Also, the person being excommunicated in this case may at some point in the future decide to repent and return to the church.  If a recording of their disciplinary council has been made public that may hinder the process.

Disciplinary councils are private, not public events. 

[Scott Lloyd]

51 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I would think that depends upon whether there are damages.

 

isn't violation of a right to privacy in itself an inherent damage?

 

[smac97]

On 4/27/2016 at 9:19 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

If there is a signed agreement of confidentiality, is it actionable?

As in "could the Church sue him?"  I doubt it.  I also doubt the Church would ever do anything about it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Surely you'll just dismiss me as having my moral compass off, but it isn't clear to me why it is dishonorable.  My question is why did the proceeding need not to be recorded?  If the Church has a legitimate reason for not wanting somebody to record it then that's one thing.  But if we are talking about allowing somebody recording their own excommunication, why not?  I can understand why the penitent needs to have the right to privacy, but why does the Church need to be secretive about the way it treats apostates?  It just makes it look like it is trying to hide things, which gives me the knee-jerk reaction that they shouldn't be hidden.  So what is more dishonorable: being complicit in hiding something that shouldn't be hidden, or breaking a promise and shining the light on something that shouldn't be hidden?

 

 

I think just the fact that you know you are being recorded might have an effect on what should be said. It might cause some nervous feelings in the room knowing that the entire world is going to listen and hang on every word you say and criticize it. And it has nothing to do with being honest, but being able to have a more relaxed atmosphere so the proceedings can happen naturally and correctly.

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I think just the fact that you know you are being recorded might have an effect on what should be said. It might cause some nervous feelings in the room knowing that the entire world is going to listen and hang on every word you say and criticize it. And it has nothing to do with being honest, but being able to have a more relaxed atmosphere so the proceedings can happen naturally and correctly.

I have to believe all present for Runnell's DC, knew they were most likely being recorded.  (Or at least highly suspected he would record it.)

.

Edited April 27, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As in "could the Church sue him?"  I doubt it.  I also doubt the Church would ever do anything about it.

Thanks,

-Smac

I doubt it as well. But In theory, could the Church seek a legal injunction against publication of the recording?

[JAHS]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I have to believe all present for Runnell's DC, knew they were most likely being recorded.  (Or at least highly suspected he would record it.)

.

And if they did suspect it that is probably why the Stake President appeared a little nervous. But that wasn't my point. I was responding to his suggestion that all proceedings should be recorded. He asked for a legitimate reason for the church to not record these things and I gave one. 

[Gray]

13 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

Utah is a single-party consent state, so not illegal. 

I wonder if there will be pressure to change the law going forward?

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

I wonder if there will be pressure to change the law going forward?

I imagine recordings like this are going to increase.  At some point the church may take notice and want to see some legislation on this. 

[smac97]

On 4/27/2016 at 11:22 AM, stemelbow said:

I imagine recordings like this are going to increase.  At some point the church may take notice and want to see some legislation on this. 

There already is legislation about this.   First, let's look at 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) (part of the overall federal wiretapping statute), which states:

It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.

Second, look at Utah Code Ann. § 77-23a-4(7)(b) (part of Utah's Interception of Communications Act ), which is similar to the federal statute:

A person not acting under color of law may intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication if that person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of state or federal laws.

The same analysis as used for the federal statute applies to the state statute.  Which is to say, a party to the communication can record, or else authorize a third party to record.

I suppose there is a possibility that the last provision in each statute might be in play ("unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of state or federal laws").  That is, surreptitiously recording a church meeting could qualify as an "invasion of privacy"-type tort.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 27, 2016 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There already is legislation about this.   First, let's look at 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) (part of the overall federal wiretapping statute), which states:

It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.

Second, look at Utah Code Ann. § 77-23a-4(7)(b) (part of Utah's Interception of Communications Act ), which is similar to the federal statute:

A person not acting under color of law may intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication if that person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of state or federal laws.

The same analysis as used for the federal statute applies to the state statute.  Which is to say, a party to the communication can record, or else authorize a third party to record.

I suppose there is a possibility that the last provision in each statute might be in play ("unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of state or federal laws").  I suppose surreptitiously recording a church meeting could qualify as an "invasion of privacy"-type tort.

Thanks,

-Smac

So it would be actionable then, right? In theory of course. I'm not saying the Church would bring an action.

[smac97]

On 4/27/2016 at 0:04 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

So it would be actionable then, right? In theory of course. I'm not saying the Church would bring an action.

I suppose.  I'd need to look into a bit more.  I'm sure there's case law out there that would shed light on this issue.  But I think the Church would not pursue such litigation.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[USU78]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

 My question is why did the proceeding need not to be recorded?

There are courts in the state system that are "of record" and other courts that are "not of record."  JP courts are among the latter.  There is an appeal right there, but it is for a new trial in front of a real judge in a court "of record," and a highly limited appeal right from that court "of record," which applies to very few cases.

The purpose of the record is its usefulness to those at the appellate level.  In the case of Runnells, he waived any appeal rights by resigning with discipline pending.  The record, had he not resigned, would have consisted of the materials gathered by the SP in preparation for the council, the written communications back and forth (including the judgment), and the summary prepared by the Stake Clerk, as well as a cover letter from the SP to the 1st Presidency.

Quote

Analytics again:  I can understand why the penitent needs to have the right to privacy, but why does the Church need to be secretive about the way it treats apostates?

The Church is highly motivated by centuries of legal precedents and rights won by blood spilt not to violate the seal of the confessional.  They take their duties not to break the seal highly seriously and won't break the seal except to the extent of (a) need to know communications, and then only to the extent of informing Bishops and select others, likewise bound by confidentiality, of the result but not the process and (b) necessary upstream communications for purpose of informing the First Presidency in cases of apostasy.

The willingness of an apostate media whore like Runnells to record proceedings and publish them, even/especially when under a duty to keep the proceedings confidential, does not in the slightest affect the Church and its procedures in keeping necessary confidentiality.  The precedent of permitting profane eyes, especially the eyes and ever-longer nose of the State, into what is sealed by confidentiality would be too dangerous to those hard-won rights.

[consiglieri]

19 hours ago, Pa Pa said:

Hove you heard anything on your status my friend. The time has come and past. Look forward to your wit and wisdom in your coming thread, 

 

All is quiet as the Sphinx in that regard, my friend.

 

In the interests of explaining a little more about where I am coming from, though, let me add the following personal information:

 

Because of my history with Mormonism, and my immersion in apologetics in the 1980’s, I was already aware of each and every one of the problematic issues outlined in the essays long before they were published.

 

I made all the standard apologetic excuses, including the customary convoluted reasoning for why it is these items were not known by the general membership.

 

I felt special because I had educated myself and, if a Mormon came across this information and was troubled by it, I was there to save the day.

 

At some point, though, I realized within myself that a lot of these excuses didn’t hold water; they were just excuses for excuses’ sake.

 

I mean, the Church was true and led by prophets and so the position I had to defend was clear—it’s just that the excuses weren’t doing the job.

 

I continued on in this vein for a number of years; still spouting the excuses even when I knew inside me that I didn’t really find them satisfying or intellectually honest.

 

Eventually, I came to the point where I couldn’t continue saying these excuses to others when I didn’t believe them myself.

 

In other words, I came to a point of integrity regarding Mormonism—making my presentation of myself match more my internal beliefs.

 

What I see going on at the MDDB a lot is people doing the same thing I used to do—spouting the excuses which must always defend the Church and its leaders even though those excuses do not hold water.

 

I see some here engaging in the same kind of logical fallacies I engaged in.

 

Which is why I am quick to point them out.

 

And I suspect that at least some of them are in the stage of spouting while not believing the stuff they are saying.  They are trying to convince themselves by convincing others—just like I used to do.

 

One way of boiling it down would be to ask whether a Mormon would make the same arguments about a different religion that they do about Mormonism.

 

Using the same techniques, any religion could be proven true.

 

The point I came to was discovering this for myself, and realizing that my reasoning on Mormonism should comport with my reasoning in every other aspect of my life.

 

This was eye-opening for me.

[Jeanne]

14 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

All is quiet as the Sphinx in that regard, my friend.

 

In the interests of explaining a little more about where I am coming from, though, let me add the following personal information:

 

Because of my history with Mormonism, and my immersion in apologetics in the 1980’s, I was already aware of each and every one of the problematic issues outlined in the essays long before they were published.

 

I made all the standard apologetic excuses, including the customary convoluted reasoning for why it is these items were not known by the general membership.

 

I felt special because I had educated myself and, if a Mormon came across this information and was troubled by it, I was there to save the day.

 

At some point, though, I realized within myself that a lot of these excuses didn’t hold water; they were just excuses for excuses’ sake.

 

I mean, the Church was true and led by prophets and so the position I had to defend was clear—it’s just that the excuses weren’t doing the job.

 

I continued on in this vein for a number of years; still spouting the excuses even when I knew inside me that I didn’t really find them satisfying or intellectually honest.

 

Eventually, I came to the point where I couldn’t continue saying these excuses to others when I didn’t believe them myself.

 

In other words, I came to a point of integrity regarding Mormonism—making my presentation of myself match more my internal beliefs.

 

What I see going on at the MDDB a lot is people doing the same thing I used to do—spouting the excuses which must always defend the Church and its leaders even though those excuses do not hold water.

 

I see some here engaging in the same kind of logical fallacies I engaged in.

 

Which is why I am quick to point them out.

 

And I suspect that at least some of them are in the stage of spouting while not believing the stuff they are saying.  They are trying to convince themselves by convincing others—just like I used to do.

 

One way of boiling it down would be to ask whether a Mormon would make the same arguments about a different religion that they do about Mormonism.

 

Using the same techniques, any religion could be proven true.

 

The point I came to was discovering this for myself, and realizing that my reasoning on Mormonism should comport with my reasoning in every other aspect of my life.

 

This was eye-opening for me.

Thank you for this.  Your honesty in this post speaks volumes.

[flameburns623]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

All is quiet as the Sphinx in that regard, my friend.

 

In the interests of explaining a little more about where I am coming from, though, let me add the following personal information:

 

Because of my history with Mormonism, and my immersion in apologetics in the 1980’s, I was already aware of each and every one of the problematic issues outlined in the essays long before they were published.

 

I made all the standard apologetic excuses, including the customary convoluted reasoning for why it is these items were not known by the general membership.

 

I felt special because I had educated myself and, if a Mormon came across this information and was troubled by it, I was there to save the day.

 

At some point, though, I realized within myself that a lot of these excuses didn’t hold water; they were just excuses for excuses’ sake.

 

I mean, the Church was true and led by prophets and so the position I had to defend was clear—it’s just that the excuses weren’t doing the job.

 

I continued on in this vein for a number of years; still spouting the excuses even when I knew inside me that I didn’t really find them satisfying or intellectually honest.

 

Eventually, I came to the point where I couldn’t continue saying these excuses to others when I didn’t believe them myself.

 

In other words, I came to a point of integrity regarding Mormonism—making my presentation of myself match more my internal beliefs.

 

What I see going on at the MDDB a lot is people doing the same thing I used to do—spouting the excuses which must always defend the Church and its leaders even though those excuses do not hold water.

 

I see some here engaging in the same kind of logical fallacies I engaged in.

 

Which is why I am quick to point them out.

 

And I suspect that at least some of them are in the stage of spouting while not believing the stuff they are saying.  They are trying to convince themselves by convincing others—just like I used to do.

 

One way of boiling it down would be to ask whether a Mormon would make the same arguments about a different religion that they do about Mormonism.

 

Using the same techniques, any religion could be proven true.

 

The point I came to was discovering this for myself, and realizing that my reasoning on Mormonism should comport with my reasoning in every other aspect of my life.

 

This was eye-opening for me.

Have you formally cut institutional ties with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints? If not, why?

And why shouldn't people sincerely interested in gaining or maintaining an appropriate testimony of the LDS Gospel limit their conversation with you to strictly non-faith related matters?

This is a general question, not simply diected to or about you  Does someone with essentially corrosive and toxic attitudes toward any faith tradition merit "disconnection" regarding faith topics so long as they are unwilling to refrain from faith-challenging behavior?