- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I agree that he meets the criteria for an apostate, but in the wake of the Otterson talk, I decided to look at Runnels’ Mormon Stories interview. Just 42 min. of it, and when the church talks incessantly about Joseph not being perfect, the dangers of black and white thinking, etc., why can’t they encourage and model kindness and gray area thinking? Before he was an apostate he was a true believing member, loving his California Mormon experience, loving scouts, serving a mission to NYC, including 9/11. Before he was an apostate he requested to stay on his mission for an extra transfer. Before he was an apostate he met his wife at BYU. Before he was an apostate he went to Rough Stone Rolling and FAIR for all his information because he wanted to use approved sources.
Instead of looking at excommunication as the apostate’s sin and error, why couldn’t we see it also as the church’s failing?
Runnels used the word “betrayal.” It’s not cool for Otterson to simply tell him not to feel that. I can get behind the church’s efforts to be open and persuasive, but what’s missing is the meekness and long suffering, and there’s hardly a smidge of empathy for people who have lost nearly everything dear to them
I’m not saying I think he shouldn’t have been excommunicated. I don’t know what I’m saying.
DarkJedi wrote:If he really didn’t want to be a member, didn’t believe, and didn’t attend, why does he care if he was ex’ed and why didn’t he just resign a long time ago?
I don’t know his mind but he could have viewed the whole thing as an opportunity to educate. I wasn’t there but I hear he asked the SP to point out where he was incorrect in something that he stated in the CES letter and that if necessary he would be more than willing to make corrections. They didn’t take him up on that offer and I believe that it was in that moment when he resigned.
I agree that he likely went into the meeting knowing that was how things would turn out. If he resigned with a letter that would indicate that he came prepared for that eventuality. Maybe in his mind it was one last ditch effort to expose how leaders were being unreasonable by their unwillingness to work with him. It was an exposé and the proceedings created an audience.
I can only guess the motives of each actor in the play.
nibbler wrote:DarkJedi wrote:If he really didn’t want to be a member, didn’t believe, and didn’t attend, why does he care if he was ex’ed and why didn’t he just resign a long time ago?
I don’t know his mind but he could have viewed the whole thing as an opportunity to educate. I wasn’t there but I hear he asked the SP to point out where he was incorrect in something that he stated in the CES letter and that if necessary he would be more than willing to make corrections. They didn’t take him up on that offer and I believe that it was in that moment when he resigned.
I agree that he likely went into the meeting knowing that was how things would turn out. If he resigned with a letter that would indicate that he came prepared for that eventuality. Maybe in his mind it was one last ditch effort to expose how leaders were being unreasonable by their unwillingness to work with him. It was an exposé.
I can only guess the motives of each actor in the play.
No one can see into the heart and mind of another, and I admit I am being judgemental. I’m not sure if Runnells was sincerely looking for answers in the beginning, but I am pretty certain he was not in the end for the same reason all of us know – there are no answers. In the end I think is is an apostate and his role has been to disillusion and lead others astray. Most of us here have many or all of those same questions – but what are we doing with them? Not publishing them to bring fame to ourselves or damage the faith and testimony of others. I have sat on a few disciplinary councils, some of which have ended in excommunication and some of which the individual did not attend. None have made general announcements about the event or held press conferences. There is a difference.
Quote:Ann wrote:
Before he was an apostate he was a true believing member, loving his California Mormon experience, loving scouts, serving a mission to NYC, including 9/11. Before he was an apostate he requested to stay on his mission for an extra transfer. Before he was an apostate he met his wife at BYU. Before he was an apostate he went to Rough Stone Rolling and FAIR for all his information because he wanted to use approved sources.
Instead of looking at excommunication as the apostate’s sin and error, why couldn’t we see it also as the church’s failing?
Ann, I love what you wrote.
I do believe that Runnells started out as a person who had questions and he hoped for answers. He didn’t get any answers. NONE. When he didn’t get any answers from the church, he posted his questions online and the Internet just blew up.
DH and I have had some heated discussions about Runnells and FAIR. DH sees FAIR as having given Runnells real answers, and Runnells just didn’t want the answers. I see the answers given as unacceptable. They were nebulous and odd answers that didn’t answer the real questions asked, or the the answer was “go read the scriptures and pray some more”
My perception is that Runnells quickly felt under attack and reacted defensively. DH feels that Runnells started out from an attack position.
Every time we discuss Runnells and FAIR, as a couple, we get cross-wise as each of us is certain we have more insight than the other. We do our evening walk and debate as we go. My hands are flying because I talk with my hands as much as my mouth. Neither one of us has been convinced of anything the other had to say. Each is sure the other will smarten up at some point.
amateurparent wrote:Quote:Ann wrote:
Before he was an apostate he was a true believing member, loving his California Mormon experience, loving scouts, serving a mission to NYC, including 9/11. Before he was an apostate he requested to stay on his mission for an extra transfer. Before he was an apostate he met his wife at BYU. Before he was an apostate he went to Rough Stone Rolling and FAIR for all his information because he wanted to use approved sources.
Instead of looking at excommunication as the apostate’s sin and error, why couldn’t we see it also as the church’s failing?
Ann, I love what you wrote.
I do believe that Runnells started out as a person who had questions and he hoped for answers. He didn’t get any answers. NONE. When he didn’t get any answers from the church, he posted his questions online and the Internet just blew up.
DH and I have had some heated discussions about Runnells and FAIR. DH sees FAIR as having given Runnells real answers, and Runnells just didn’t want the answers. I see the answers given as unacceptable. They were nebulous and odd answers that didn’t answer the real questions asked, or the the answer was “go read the scriptures and pray some more”
My perception is that Runnells quickly felt under attack and reacted defensively. DH feels that Runnells started out from an attack position.
Every time we discuss Runnells and FAIR, as a couple, we get cross-wise as each of us is certain we have more insight than the other. We do our evening walk and debate as we go. My hands are flying because I talk with my hands as much as my mouth. Neither one of us has been convinced of anything the other had to say. Each is sure the other will smarten up at some point.
I probably side more with your view than your husband’s. I don’t blame necessarily blame Jeremy for his evolution. And I don’t think he’s a bad person. But there are consequences for actions. We don’t get to choose them. Maybe he did everything perfect according to his conscience, but he still has to understand he’s opposing an organization that has stated what they do to people who oppose them. If he valued his membership in the church, he wouldn’t have taken the course he did.
Quote:CIT wrote:
I probably side more with your view than your husband’s. I don’t blame necessarily blame Jeremy for his evolution. And I don’t think he’s a bad person. But there are consequences for actions. We don’t get to choose them. Maybe he did everything perfect according to his conscience, but he still has to understand he’s opposing an organization that has stated what they do to people who oppose them. If he valued his membership in the church, he wouldn’t have taken the course he did.
This is a very interesting statement to me. When I see people with statements against the church, so often, they state that they are just trying to be honest about their thoughts and feelings. The backlash is frequently phrased in terms of loyalty, opposition, and “valuing membership”
There is a disconnect between those two thought processes.
One is focused on honesty — LDS teachings have always taught how important honesty in thought, word, and deed.
The other is focused on loyalty, maintaining the status quo, maintaining a public united face, and avoiding public embarrassment of the organization.
There is a very serious disconnect because the church teaches children, teens, and adults the importance of honesty. That is a lesson that we all know well.
The second lesson of not publically embarrassing the Church is not a lesson we are taught. It is a social nuance that we are supposed to learn. Through social learning, we are supposed to learn that the first lesson of honesty is important, but less so than the more nuanced social learning lessons.
Having a child who struggles with social nuances, I find myself wondering how Deaf Culture has affected how Runnells processes information. That thought leads to other questions about how many “apostates” are simply people who didn’t every learn the second more nuanced lesson. They are feeling blind-sided by the church as the church is labeling them “apostate” for expressing their honesty.
I think he was a bit ticked that he put a lot of time into his work and then got resounding silence – no response. Then he was surprised how much attention he received and almost everyone likes praise and attention. I would agree as of late he was fighting against the church. I seem to remember glancing at the FAIR rebuttal and didn’t give it much of a chance since the first few responses really sounded hollow to me.
I do think the church teaches a very strong “do what is right no matter if the whole world disagrees – this means you have God on your side” mode of thinking. They of course want this to never be against the church, but once someone view the church organization as “not good”, I can see it would be easy for them to turn this against the church.
LookingHard wrote:
I do think the church teaches a very strong “do what is right no matter if the whole world disagrees – this means you have God on your side” mode of thinking. They of course want this to never be against the church, but once someone view the church organization as “not good”, I can see it would be easy for them to turn this against the church.I agree, but only on matters that are doctrinal and which have no immediate consequences to their assets or membership. Further, if the “doing what is right” applies to an individual case (an individual member) then their tendency to act egocentrically is amplified.
Speaking from experience.
For those so inclined a recording of the disciplinary council is online. IMO both sides came out looking bad. It’s clear the SP went in with a plan to not entertain Jeremy’s questioning, that’s fine but I felt like he was rude in his approach. He could have been polite. The SP probably did what he did to put a stop to the whole “who is really on trial here?” thing and IMO Jeremy went in with the plan of turning the tables on them by putting the church on trial.
From the SP’s list of “charges” in the beginning and Jeremy’s later response it would appear that the two factions are on completely different pages. I think both sides ended up getting what they wanted.
Runnell is relatively new to cochlear implants. Deafness often lends itself to a certain bluntness and lack of nuance in communication. I’ve wondered if that affected Runnells reactions to responses he received. Sometimes, the church leadership can be quite nuanced in their communications. They expect others to respond in an equally nuanced way.
Two very different communication styles could have caused this to escalate faster than it would have otherwise.
nibbler wrote:IMO both sides came out looking bad.
yup
amateurparent wrote:… Sometimes, the church leadership can be quite nuanced in their communications.
You mean like an “unwritten order of things”?
nibbler wrote:It’s clear the SP went in with a plan to not entertain Jeremy’s questioning, that’s fine but I felt like he was rude in his approach. He could have been polite. The SP probably did what he did to put a stop to the whole “who is really on trial here?” thing and IMO Jeremy went in with the plan of turning the tables on them by putting the church on trial.
I think Runnells was trying to put the church between a rock and a hard place and the SP had to deal with that somehow. We don’t know the prior interactions between the two, it could very well be that Runnells came on again and again with his questions (which have no answers) without addressing the things the SP was asking (which is what would lead to a DC).
nibbler wrote:I think both sides ended up getting what they wanted.
Agreed. Except perhaps Runnells is not getting the media attention he desired.
Are there different kinds of excommunication hearings? I thought there were always HC members assigned to take the accused’s “side” in discussing the charges. Even though I think an Mormon-turned-atheist who leads people away from the church is worthy of excommunication, I really don’t think it was all as calculated as some do. If all he wanted was to hurt the church he would have maintained the appearance of a basic believer instead of going on about the psychopathic God of the O.T. I hope one of the long-term fruits of this excommunication is lighting a fire under the curriculum writers. Stop making the point of every dang lesson to follow the prophet. Teach us to put the O.T. in some kind of context that will keep people from free-falling like Runnels did.
Ann wrote:Are there different kinds of excommunication hearings? I thought there were always HC members assigned to take the accused’s “side” in discussing the charges.
The HC members assigned don’t speak for him or defend him but are there to be sure he’s treated fairly. Plus what DJ said.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.