- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The discussion among the High Councilors happens after the person leaves the room, so it wouldn’t be recorded by someone secretly recording it. (which is an issue, in and of itself, since the recording only will include the “presentation” and not the discussion following – which often is agonizing and divided) I have never been on the HC. And make a decision regarding excommunication. In the Catholic church, the decision is made by one man: the parish Priest. (As I understand it.)
It can never be an easy decision. Especially if you were a Missionary at one time.
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 haven’t followed this as closely as you, but my gut feeling is that I’m with your DH. Several months ago, when a friend of mine mentioned the CES letter to me, she talked as if Runnells had just stumbled across all of these problems he was looking for resolution for. When I went in and looked at the letter myself (I never did read the entire thing from beginning to end), I thought, “This is all yesterday’s news. Is Runnells really just becoming aware of this stuff for the first time? Does he honestly think he’s come up with anything most of us haven’t already heard a million times before?” The first time I was exposed to anti-Mormon material (it had to have been close to 25 years ago now), my first thought was that I needed to start doing some research to find out how much of it was true and how much of it wasn’t. I spent hours online and bought quite a few apologetic-type books and attended the annual FAIR Conference for several years in a row.. It wouldn’t have even occurred to me to assemble all of the negative stuff I could find and write a letter insisting that the Church respond to it. Runnells evidently didn’t like the answers he got from FAIR. Sometimes I’m not overly impressed by their answers either. But from what I can see, I kind of feel that he just had a bone to pick and wanted as much attention as he could get which picking it. I’m afraid I really don’t have all that much sympathy for him. I wish the Church weren’t so gung-ho to excommunicate dissenters and to silence people with genuine questions, but when you do what Runnells did, you get what Runnells got, and it shouldn’t have been much of a surprise to anyone.Katzpur wrote:…when you do what Runnells did, you get what Runnells got, and it shouldn’t have been much of a surprise to anyone.
I agree. The church gets to be right and justified in excommunicating him, but the less time spent excommunicating outliers like Runnels, the better, I think. Let’s put the energy into turning the big ship. Because for every Runnels, there are ten quiet apostates who just leave and it’s not Runnels & Co.’s fault. It’s the age we live in and past chickens coming home to roost.Quote:Let’s put the energy into turning the big ship.
Amen – and, honestly, I think that is what the current leadership (or, at least, most of them) are trying to do.
My husband watched the video, my husband is a CES letter supporter and really hurts for Runnell’s and others like him, however he acknowledged that the SP wasn’t working to try and be “patient and long suffering.” We talked about 2 previous SP we both served under, they were like Runnell’s SP appears to be, yet they were that way all the time. The trail of tyrannical stories they left behind are legendary, and those were among day to day members, not apostates (According to the excommunication statement). These men cancelled stake sports because one person had a temper tantrum, they made Youth Conference the most boring and unuplifting event for 18 years, and thought nothing of verbally chastising wards and people publicly. And in their own minds they were doing the work of the Lord. They lived to spend the least amount of money possible then proudly announce how much they sent back to Salt Lake. They blew through like hurricanes. Their version of love was undetectable in a public forum. Yet, if you spent time privately you caught a sense of what their hearts held. Neither of them were ever good as outright leaders, in my opinion, but God may judge them differently. My husband and I both wonder though if Jeremy Runnell’s had the sad luck of having a SP like we both knew. Under that plan Jeremy never stood a chance.
My personal take on this comes down to karma. The events, I believe, will have a strange long term impact on 15 individual lives. The outcomes may be very unexpected. Time will tell.
Ann wrote:Katzpur wrote:…when you do what Runnells did, you get what Runnells got, and it shouldn’t have been much of a surprise to anyone.
I agree. The church gets to be right and justified in excommunicating him, but the less time spent excommunicating outliers like Runnels, the better, I think. Let’s put the energy into turning the big ship. Because for every Runnels, there are ten quiet apostates who just leave and it’s not Runnels & Co.’s fault. It’s the age we live in and past chickens coming home to roost.
ABSOLUTELY!:clap: mom3 wrote:My husband and I both wonder though if Jeremy Runnell’s had the sad luck of having a SP like we both knew. Under that plan Jeremy never stood a chance.
That’s entirely possible. Right now I have both the world’s most Christ-like bishop and the world’s most Christ-like state president. But it definitely hasn’t always been so, and the damage a judgmental and/or self-important bishop or stake president can do is absolutely heart-wrenching.It really underscores the importance of surveiling (so to speak) your priesthood leaders before you share anything with them locally. In fact, there is a case for not sharing anything with them at all. There is such roulette, and they have such power to hurt your life, it is something to consider. Just like certain states have differences in penalties for certain infractions, so do SP and BP’s have difference ideas of what is excommunicable and what is not…I know these things are decided in councils, but in Bishop’s council the BP is one of three members, and even then the SP can send “messages” to his HC or even his Bishop’s Council which imply, tacitly, what they think the outcome should be. I have seen that happen before as I have been involved in Disciplinary councils at both the HC and Bishop’s level (with Melchizedek Priesthood holders, with responsibility for the council referred to us even though normally it would be handled by the HC). In this case, we all believed the SP was considering the infraction worhty of lesser punishment than we would have otherwise thought…hence his referral of the matter to a lower court…
Anyway, how Runnells gets a fair shake…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.