- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Reports are saying that Jeremy Runnells, the author of the CES letter, is scheduled to appear at a disciplinary council February 14th, 2016. Maybe it won’t end up interfering with Valentine’s Day plans for him or anyone else that has to attend the council since the Sabbath already took care of that for them 
:angel: .First reaction, I was surprised this hadn’t taken place long ago. The timing is weird.
The council can decide any number of things but I’m presupposing excommunication for the sake of argument. What are the long term fruits of excommunicating members in this fashion? What do leaders hope to achieve? What type of church do they want to create by taking these actions? Irrespective of the desired outcome, what type of church do you think will actually result?
At the moment I’m not terribly interested in whether this was a mandate from top leadership or whether it was wholly initiated at the local level, excommunications take place either way. Key factors that trigger specific kinds of excommunications appear to have the potential to grow in coming years. What will this mean, more excommunications in our future or a quicker trip for the church down Elder Holland’s proverbial dead end road so we can be more certain of the right, alternate path?
To be clear, I’m not worried about being excommunicated and I’m not worried about this being the start of some grand witch hunt. I do find myself wondering what message is being sent, intentional or otherwise. I do worry that the church will become far too homogeneous in her beliefs, potentially becoming deaf to new revelation that doesn’t line up with tradition.
Edit: For the most part I think excommunications go unnoticed by the general membership unless they involve someone that’s close to them. Maybe the only fruit of excommunicating members is mostly limited to the families directly involved. Everything else is just a tiny ripple among people in the disaffected community, then it’s business as usual.
nibbler wrote:Irrespective of the desired outcome, what type of church do you think will actually result?
A distracted, fractured, demoralized, embarrassed, defensive one.I blinked twice and reread the story because I thought, No way. They can’t possibly be doing this on Valentine’s Day Sunday at the very beginning of the keep-the-Sabbath-holy year.
Of course he meets the criteria for excommunication, but will the church survive the process of measuring everyone against it in the Internet age?
I guess excommunications are there to support certain standards the organization wants to hold, and send messages to those that cross the line of what is allowed, according to the deciding body. I guess kind of like the NFL fines players if they don’t answer questions after the game, or whatever else they decide is needed to maintain what the organization thinks is important. The end result is not for the individual being excommunicated, but more for the sheep within the fold they need to protect.
I have heard them say that it is loving, and it is for the growth of the individual, but I don’t buy that. It is a line in the sand to try to get them to stop a certain behavior the church leaders feel threatened by, and it is an action to carry out in response.
Kind of like if my brother always broke my stuff in my home…I mean…I love you bro…but if you keep breaking stuff, you need to leave. It’s not to protect my brother or teach him a lesson…it is to protect me, my stuff, and my family.
I have pondered this a bit since reading it Nibbler. I don;t know what the church wants out of it other than sending a message that some behavior is unacceptable. Runnels is a tiny blip on the radar, most members have no idea who he is nor have they heard of the CES letter. He won’t get the media attention Kelly and Dehlin got, and non-Mormons couldn’t care less. Is ex’ing him going to make him go away? I doubt it. (There I go doubting again! 👿 )I am also surprised this hasn’t happened (or that he hasn’t resigned) sooner. He clearly fits the definition of an apostate.
I am surprised that Jeremy Runnells hasn’t been up for a disciplinary council until now. The only reason I can think that it hasn’t happened up until now is that the Church didn’t want to draw attention to the CES Letter. I agree with DJ that this will not generate near the publicity that that Kate Kelley or John Dehlin generated, but I question why the Church would want more bad PR or attention to the CES Letter now. I’m sure there is more to the story than appears on the press release on cesletter.com, but why was his request to have the DC delayed until March 15th due to a family member in hospice care originally accepted, then changed to Feb 14th of all days?
I have no doubt that JR will be excommunicated for apostasy. But he started out with some sincere questions and just wanted some answers. He didn’t get those answers from the CES Director, and I haven’t found satisfactory answers to many of the same questions.
Will it do the Church more harm to ex JR by drawing attention to the CES Letter and causing more TBMs to spiral into a faith crisis? Or will it solidify the policy of excommunicating those who publicly express doubts and oppose the brethren? One thing is for sure – cesletter.com is not going away.
FaithfulSkeptic wrote:
I’m sure there is more to the story than appears on the press release on cesletter.com, but why was his request to have the DC delayed until March 15th due to a family member in hospice care originally accepted, then changed to Feb 14th of all days?I read it’s been changed back to March.
Quote:then changed to Feb 14th of all days?
This morning my husband thought Runnells should take in a box with special valentines and maybe a homemade cupcake or cookie. Then he should distribute them to the high council and Stake Presidency, with instructions for the brethren of the court to give them to their wives on Valentines Day. Just a gentle reminder of priorities. I liked it.
Excommunication does NOT silence people, not even close. And there are aspects of it that are courts of love, and some that are not. I know what I’m talking about. As far as the CES letter?…why not answer the dang questions he brought up! DUH!
But they can’t…can they….and so they have to go after the source and silence him. It will send a message: don’t ask questions like these,…because we, the GAs, will tell you what to believe.
You know, if we have a prophet and there are some legitimate questions, then why can’t said prophet use the seer stones or something–ANYTHING–and get some answers?
I don’t buy any of it.
Rob4Hope wrote:Excommunication does NOT silence people, not even close. And there are aspects of it that are courts of love, and some that are not. I know what I’m talking about.
I agree this is not something done out of love but to separate the church from someone who’s already separated himself.
Quote:As far as the CES letter?…why not answer the dang questions he brought up! DUH!
Because they weren’t asked to be answered.
Quote:But they can’t…can they….and so they have to go after the source and silence him. It will send a message: don’t ask questions like these,…because we, the GAs, will tell you what to believe.
I don’t think questioning is the issue but proselyting.
Quote:You know, if we have a prophet and there are some legitimate questions, then why can’t said prophet use the seer stones or something–ANYTHING–and get some answers?
I don’t buy any of it.
Again, I don’t believe those questions were asked to be answered.GBSmith wrote:Rob4Hope wrote:Excommunication does NOT silence people, not even close. And there are aspects of it that are courts of love, and some that are not. I know what I’m talking about.
I agree this is not something done out of love but to separate the church from someone who’s already separated himself.
Quote:As far as the CES letter?…why not answer the dang questions he brought up! DUH!
Because they weren’t asked to be answered.
Quote:But they can’t…can they….and so they have to go after the source and silence him. It will send a message: don’t ask questions like these,…because we, the GAs, will tell you what to believe.
I don’t think questioning is the issue but proselyting.
Quote:You know, if we have a prophet and there are some legitimate questions, then why can’t said prophet use the seer stones or something–ANYTHING–and get some answers?
I don’t buy any of it.
Again, I don’t believe those questions were asked to be answered.Well put, GBS, and I agree. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having questions such as those in the CES letter. Almost all of us here have at least some of those questions, and I believe the majority of members have wondered about many of them as well. It is not the questions – it’s what Runnells has done with them.
DarkJedi wrote:
Well put, GBS, and I agree. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having questions such as those in the CES letter. Almost all of us here have at least some of those questions, and I believe the majority of members have wondered about many of them as well. It is not the questions – it’s what Runnells has done with them.Well, I want some answers.
So, excommunicate him and ignore answering the questions?
GBSmith wrote:Because they weren’t asked to be answered.
I think this is exactly it. In the beginning I believe I
waslooking for answers to my unsettled questions. As time wore on I realized that there are no answers to most of the questions that I had. At that point if I continued to press for answers I’d only be doing it to back someone into a corner. I think back to lessons I’ve had in church where someone pointed out that when god asked Adam and Eve, “Who told thee that thou wast naked?” he already knew the answer but he wanted to stir things up a little and get Adam and Eve to fess up to what they had done. The lesson in church was rounded out by pointing out how the process had helped Adam and Eve learn accountability.
The CES letter may or may not have started off as honest inquiry but I think that over time, once people had reached their conclusion, the letter became a tool to stir things up. It wasn’t so much about getting answers, it was about holding leaders accountable and for proselyting the conclusion they had reached.
Rob4Hope wrote:Well, I want some answers.
Frankly I’d rather come up with my own answers. Looking to leaders (or Runnells or whoever) to supply me with the answers would deprive me of an opportunity to grow.
nibbler wrote:Rob4Hope wrote:Well, I want some answers.
Frankly I’d rather come up with my own answers. Looking to leaders (or Runnells or whoever) to supply me with the answers would deprive me of an opportunity to grow.
:thumbup: Rob4, I’d lean more towards a church with fewer answers. I want nothing to do with someof the answers on Part 1 of the essay experiment. Give me the facts and stop arm-wrestling me into a conclusion. I’d like less certainty, more willingness to unclench and see Mormonism like a sociologist might. Less triumphalism, Joseph Smith, and Church history minutiae. More forward-looking openness and humility. (See mom3’s Richard Bushman quote in her signature.)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.