Transcript
Jeremy Runnells Church Court April 17, 2016, American Fork, UT
Jeremy: Hi guys. Alright I need to get in it’s six o’clock
I got to get in.
I’m gonna take a minute to see everybody. Thank you all for coming tonight, I appreciate it. I’m going to go in tonight with my head held high, morally clean and with a clear conscience that I’ve done nothing wrong. Hopefully tonight, the church will answer the questions that they’ve been ignoring the last three years. Thank you all, I’m going to head in. (applause & whistles)
Unintelligible voices and scuffling.
3:35 President Ivins, how are you?
Ivins: Good how are you?
Jeremy: This is my interpreter Aaron that will be helping me tonight.
Ivins: he is not going to come into the council
Jeremy: This is the document from the handbook specifically stating –unintelligible –Why can I not have an interpreter to accommodate me?
Ivins: We have an interpreter here for you.
Jeremy: Oh, you do?
Ivins: from the church, that’s correct.
Jeremy: Why didn’t you tell me that before because the impression I got was that there was no interpreter at all.
Ivins: I decided to provide an interpreter for you if you want one.
Jeremy: Okay, ya, that’d be great! – Why is that?
Ivins: Would you like him to come in or not? (Unknown voice) he asked if you want an interpreter or not.
Jeremy: I do, it’s just surprised at the sudden change, that’s all.
4:25 Ivins: So, I need to have you read this.
Jeremy: So are you kicking him out?
Ivins: He is not invited to the council.
Jeremy: Do I get a copy of this?
Ivins: No –
Jeremy: I’m asking you, do I get a copy of this?
Ivins: I can get you a copy of the information here but not the signatures.
Jeremy: Can you give me a copy right now?
Ivins: I’d have to type it up, I’ll get it to you, I’ll send you the document.
Jeremy: When will you send me the document?
Ivins: By Wednesday, this week.
5:38 Ivins: Okay,
5:58 Jeremy: I appreciate you accommodating me with the interpreter. Scuffling, seat assignments…6:30 introductions, names bleeped out, nice to meet you, pleased to meet you, etc.
6:58 Jeremy: are you the first or second counselor. © second counselor.
© second counselor.
Jeremy: I need to be a little bit closer to the stake president if I can. (person) Just slide forward.
Jeremy: cool. (person) is president Ivins bringing an interpreter?
Jeremy: before I came here there was no interpreter, now there’s an interpreter. I brought my interpreter but he kicked him out. (person) can you slide your chair back?
Jeremy: I need to be able to hear him better.
Ivins: You’ll have an interpreter right here.
Jeremy: I know, but I want to be able to hear as well. Thank you.
8:25 (person) Should the interpreter be closer to your left side or?
Jeremy: It’s okay, I appreciate your concern.
Jeremy: good I remember you! Nice to see ya. How’s your family?
(P2?) Good, and yours?
Jeremy: Great.
(P2) good deal. Okay, where would be a good place for me to sit? Is this good?
Jeremy: perfect.
(P2) Will this work? Okay.
8:48 Ivins: Brethren, this is Jeremy Runnells from the 30th ward, and we’re here to hold a disciplinary counsel in his behalf. I’ve asked brother – to give the opening prayer
(prayer) Our dear Father in heaven, we’re grateful for the gospel of Jesus Christ and to be here to participate in these proceedings, and we ask that thy spirit may be upon us, that we might know thy will concerning all things, that this might be pleasing unto thee we pray in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen. (Amens from others)
9:18 Ivins: Okay, we’ve had an opening prayer, um, Jeremy we have convened tonight to perform a disciplinary council in your behalf the result of which includes the possibility of no action, formal probation, disfellowshipment or excommunication. The reason for this council is that you are reported to be in apostasy and that you have repeatedly acted in clear, open and deliberate public opposition to the church or it’s leaders. You have among other things, published materials and have participated in interviews which have attempted to discredit the church, publicly expressed your view that the scriptures are fraudulent, and expressed opposition to church leaders including the prophet Joseph Smith. The definition of apostasy as defined in the handbook is: repeatedly act in clear, open, deliberate public opposition to the church or its leaders.
Jeremy: Can you finish the rest of the apostasy definition?
Ivins: I’m gonna speak what I want to speak.
Jeremy: Okay.
Ivins: Thank you. Jeremy, do you admit or deny your participation in this conduct?
Jeremy: I deny it.
Ivins: Okay.
Jeremy: I deny it in the context of how you are framing it.
Ivins: Okay. 10:30 I’ll take up to fifteen (15) minutes to state the letter that I sent you to present the evidence that supports those things expressed previously. After my 15 minutes, you’ll be given 45 minutes to make your statement. Do you understand that?
Jeremy: I do.
Ivins: As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we believe Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God and He is the head of the church restored through the prophet Joseph Smith, that he did see God the father and His son Jesus Christ. That he brought forth the Book of Mormon, by the power of God and has been led by continuous prophets since then to continuing revelation. As part of your public, open, deliberate opposition to the church, you have published an 84 page document on a public internet site, expressing public opposition to core church doctrine, which you claim has been downloaded and shared over 100,000 times. This document is being translated into multiple languages. You are soliciting donations for its ongoing distribution and development. You have done multiple on-line recorded interviews broadcasting your views in opposition of church doctrine and its leaders. There’s indication from your public website and also in on-line public forums that you are openly and deliberately in public opposition to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You are doing this by deliberately and openly mocking and ridiculing God as a psychopathic, uh, sorry,
(other voice) schizophrenic
Ivins: schizophrenic, thank you, page 70 of your online document, sorry these things are hard to read. You expressed ridicule and mocked the latter day scriptures, their origin, and the prophet Joseph Smith. Page 81 of your on-line document. More specifically, here are some of your quotes and teachings: page 69 of your online document, you state your disbelief and opposition to the scriptures quote “to believe in the scriptures I have to believe in a God who endorsed murder, genocide, rape, slavery, selling daughters into sex slavery, polygamy, child abuse, stoning disobedient children, pillage, plunder, sexism, racism, human sacrifice, animal sacrifice, killing people who work on the Sabbath, death penalty for those who mix cotton with polyester, and so on.” On page 70 of the same document, “as a believing Mormon, I tried to rationalize some of the craziness, by saying ‘oh, this is in the crazy Old Testament when the law of Moses was in force, Christ came and fulfilled the law of Moses. The problem with this is that the crazy God of the Old Testament was Jehovah. Who is Jehovah? The pre-mortal Jesus Christ. So, Christ is the crazy god of the Old Testament. The Christ of the Old Testament and the Christ of the New Testament are light years different. Again, I’m asked to not only believe in a part time racist god and a part time polygamist god, but a part time psycho, *sigh*, psychopathic,
(other voice) schizophrenic
Ivins: schizophrenic one as well.” Page 82 quote “There are just too many problems, we’re not just talking about one issue here. We’re talking about dozens of serious issues that underlie the very foundations of the LDS church and its truth claims.” Page 39 quote “I’m supposed to go to the drawing board now and believe in a god who is not only schizophrenic racist but who is inconsistent as well. Yesterday’s doctrine is today’s false doctrine. Yesterday’s tent prophets are today’s heretics.” Page 42, “Why would I want my kids” am I going to fast or to slow?
(Other voice) you’re okay
Ivins: okay, thank you.
(Other voice) are we going too fast?
Ivins: are we going too fast?
Jeremy: I know what the document is. So…
Ivins: Okay. On page 42, “Why would I want my kids singing ‘follow the prophet’ with its ridiculous 183 year old track record? What credibility do the brethren have? Why would I want them following the prophet when the prophet is just a man of his time, teaching his theories that will likely be disavowed by future prophets, seers and revelators? In his moral blueprint not much better than the Sunday school teachers if historically speaking the doctrine he teaches today will likely be tomorrow’s false doctrine.” Page 81-82 quote, “I’m sorry but faith is believing or hoping when there is little evidence for or against something. Delusion is believing when there is an abundance of evidence against something. To me, that’s absolute insanity that my life, my precious time, my money, my heart, and my mind on an organization that has so many serious problematic challenges to it’s foundational truth claims. In an on-line video on Mormon Stories, you stated on June 13, 2014 part one, you state: “To me the book of Abraham has got some problems. To me, I look at each individual issue and I take a step back and say Look, I just don’t look at a tree here and there, I look at the trees individually and then take a step back, and I look at the forest and I say, really? Is this really the one and only true forest on the face of the earth? It doesn’t look like it’s God’s work. It just looks like one clumsy hoax. Part 2 you state, “I no longer believe in the church, I mean I’m not a Christian. I really don’t relate to the whole Christian stuff, what I did, I took their (meaning the Tanner’s) research and their insights and put it in a way that works best for me. That explains my train of thought in terms of why I no longer believe in the church. My obsession now is not the same obsession as it was a year or two or three ago. I don’t care about the LDS church anymore. Its foundational truth claims are demonstrably false. The church is doing a fantastic job accelerating its eventual irrelevance and demise.
Jeremy: I’m sorry, where is this from by the way?
Ivins: Your CES letter.
Jeremy: No, the, what you just read. It’s from the CES letter?
(Other voice) that was from the Mormon Stories podcast.
Ivins: Part one, part two and part three are all from the Mormon Stories.
Jeremy: This is all from that interview?
Ivins: uh huh.
Jeremy: and the first part, the second part, which part is that?
Ivins: okay, the first section I read, if you want me to read it again, I will.
Jeremy: It’s fine.
Ivins: Part one, part two, part three.
Jeremy: Okay.
Ivins: We’re on part three. You state, “The church is fake and not real. No, it, the church is not really good, it’s fake. It’s not real.” You state also, “I’m an atheist or a Buddhist, so in that sense I’m kind of an atheist, I don’t believe in any religion or gods I currently know of. If a gun were pointed to my head, and I was forced to join a religion, I would probably join Buddhism.
17:49
Ivins: Now, this is my words here. Jeremy, I’ve offered to have written dialogue with you and I outlined certain guidelines for you to respect during our discussions. Including your agreeing to keep our discussions confidential for the time that we would communicate with each other. You chose not to participate in these discussions. You and any person are welcome to your own conclusions and views but when you create your own organization and begin to solicit others to your point of view, seeking to oppose the foundational doctrines of the church you cross a boundary where in you support and participate in direct opposition to the church. It is my opinion that you have repeatedly acted in clear and open deliberate public opposition to the church and its leaders. I want to share my testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I know the gospel of Jesus Christ is true. That we’re led by a modern day prophet. That through direct revelation we’re guided and directed in these latter days. That families can be eternal and we can find joy and happiness living gospel principles that are taught to us by prophets, seers and revelators. And I bear that testimony in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen. (amens) Okay, you have now 45 minutes to make a statement.
Jeremy: Cool, Thank you very much. Um, Okay, Uh, President Ivins can you read the rest of the apostasy definition? Like you read the definition, but there’s more to it.
Ivins: I’d like you to make a statement.
Jeremy: Okay, you’re not going to answer that?
Ivins: No, I’m not.
Jeremy: K, um, my experience with President Ivins unfortunately the past year and a half, is that he has never answered my questions. Not a single question. I’ve asked you three questions over and over and over and over and over and over and over 28 times and a specific question that I asked you is, What errors or mistakes in the CES letter or in the website is incorrect so that I can publically correct it? The second question I asked you is, if there are no errors or mistakes, why am I being punished for speaking and sharing the truth? Now the third question I asked you is, What question am I being punished for? And you have not answered a single one of them. Can I ask you why you are not answering them?
Ivins: You’re gonna make a statement.
Jeremy: So you’re not going to answer any questions this evening.
Ivins: I’m not. No. I’ve stated my evidence, you make a statement.
Jeremy: Okay. So do I have here, would you agree that I
Ivins: You make a statement Jeremy.
Jeremy: Why are you not answering any questions?
Ivins: This is not the time for that.
Jeremy: When is the time?
Ivins: We’re not going to get into a debate. You’re going to make a statement. Period.
Jeremy: I’m just going to make a statement. Why won’t you answer my questions? I’ve asked and they’re very reasonable questions that I’ve asked over and over. Like I don’t know what, if there are errors or mistakes, I want to correct them. I don’t understand why you are spiritually executing me over something, I don’t know what’s wrong. You claim I’m in opposition to the church. The church’s essays are in public opposition to the church. Out of curiosity, by a show of hands, how many of you have read the church’s essays? Nobody here? Okay, um. By the show of hands, how many of you have read the CES letter? Nobody here tonight has read the CES letter? Wow. And by the show of hands, has president Ivins prepared you tonight for this council by reading the CES letter carefully?
Ivins: Jeremy, make a statement.
Jeremy: Okay.21:45 So, no questions are going to be answered tonight. Um, this is crazy. This is really crazy. I refuse your accusation that I’m in opposition to the church. It is interesting that the claims that you have made against me, there’s not one thing that I’ve said that is not true or that I’m claiming falsehoods. You’re just saying that I’m in opposition. The reality is that the church’s essays are in opposition to the church. The book of Abraham is in opposition to the book of Abraham. Joseph Smith, the Kirtland and Nauvoo polygamy essay discusses very disturbing information about Joseph Smith, how he married 14 year old girls, and other men’s wives. There are serious problems with church history.
And for those of you who are unfamiliar with my background, I was approached by my grandfather’s friend who was a CES director. He asked me to lay out my concerns and questions. And, I laid out my concerns and questions and his response after reading it was that it was a very well written document and that the brethren are concerned about the issues that the church is facing now in the information age. He said that he would respond back to me. He never responded back to me. I have sought official answers to church problems. And I’ve sought the answers for three years. And they never came. I’ve sought answers from you, President Ivins, in two meetings. The first meeting was October 19th, we got to know each other and you agreed to read the CES letter and you read the CES letter and I appreciate that. Then the next meeting we had was November 2nd in that meeting I asked you to correct me, to show me where the errors were in the CES letter so that I could publically correct it. In the beginning of the
The first meeting was October 19th, we got to know each other and you agreed to read the CES letter and you read the CES letter and I appreciate that. Then the next meeting we had was November 2nd in that meeting I asked you to correct me, to show me where the errors were in the CES letter so that I could publically correct it. In the beginning of the meeting you refused to do that. So, I kept asking you to please correct me so that I could publicly correct it. I am only interested in accurate information. And so I asked you to define apostasy for me and you pulled out the church handbook of instructions and there’s a part in the church handbook of instructions where it outlines the different definitions. You read one of the definitions. Act repeatedly in clear, open and deliberate, public opposition to the church or it’s leaders. But, you didn’t read the second one. The second one is persist in teaching that church doctrine information that is not church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or higher authority. And when you read that last sentence, your face and your demeanor shifted because you realized, you have to correct me. That we can’t go by your quote unquote dark feelings. And so I asked you, correct me, please correct me, show me where the errors are. And you agreed to show me, not in this meeting, but I’ll show you later where your errors and mistakes are. So it went from the beginning of the meeting, I’m not going to correct you in anyway, I’m not getting into that to where after you’d read this definition, you said, okay I will show you the errors and mistakes. Then you disappear. I never heard back from you again. Until this year.
So for a year I waited for your answer and instead of answers you had the audacity of calling me, after you knew that I told your secretary that I had a family member in hospice. You still had the audacity to call me and say, come in anyway. And I asked you what this meeting was in regards to, hoping that maybe it would be answers that you told me you were going to get and the corrections and errors that you were going to give me. But instead of doing that, I asked you, what this meeting was in regards to and you stated that this was in regards to your membership in the church. We never had a conversation between November 2nd when you agreed to help me and to give me the errors and mistakes to that time. And I find that disturbing. We had an agreement to meet on March 15 and I am extremely disturbed by how I was treated this year by you president, extremely disturbed. We had an agreement on March 15 to meet and in February you came after me and you said, we’re going to hold a council on you on Valentine’s Day. I said, wait a minute, I never changed the agreement, March 15th, why are you changing it? It was really weird. There was this real sense of urgency that you had all of a sudden. You disappear for a year then all of a sudden, you have this sense of urgency. On the phone call when I said March 15, you said, I can’t wait that long.
Is Salt Lake involved in this? K, you’re not gonna answer that?
So you talked about the Valentine’s Day disciplinary council on me without talking to me, without giving me any errors or mistakes to correct. And, um, I just find that really disturbing. So, and I also have a problem with how you conducted it. You claimed that you had additional information to warrant the disciplinary council on Valentine’s Day. That just made it urgent. And the letter that you sent a few days later said, Conduct unbecoming a member, so it appeared that you and the church were attempting an assassination of character attempt on me. I had no idea what I was being taken to the court for. I didn’t know the exact charges. No charges were given to me. I was never called to repentance. No errors or mistakes were given me. Not one single question was answered. It’s wrong. It’s not right. It’s un-Christ like in every way.
So, I had a press conference to discuss this un-Christ like behavior and this injustice that was being done against me. And low and behold, the very next day, five o’clock in the morning, you emailed me saying that the disciplinary council was cancelled for Valentine’s Day. So you scheduled it for March 20th and you said that our March 15th meeting was still on. And, so February 28th you emailed me again and you asked if I was still gonna meet March 15th. I said, nothing’s changed, I’ll still meet with you. By the way, I’m going to bring my ASL interpreter to insure that I understand the meeting. And you had a problem with the interpreter, you did not want an interpreter present. So, you cancelled the March 15th meeting. And you also cancelled the March 20th meeting. And you took our conversation into writing. And I was grateful for that. So, I wanted to start a conversation with you. But you placed restrictions on it. You for some reason, you wanted to take it into the dark, into non-transparency. And in our November 2nd meeting when you offered to help me with the answers, there were no conditions placed on that. All of a sudden there are all of these conditions that we have to talk in the dark, and all that. I was trying to understand why you were placing these conditions. What was your reasoning for it? Because I believe in the Mormon marketplace of information.
I believe that individuals, and investigators and members of the church need all of the information on the table to make a fully informed decision as to whether or not they want to commit their hearts, minds, lives and money to Mormonism. It’s important. Because if not all the information is on the table, if an organization or an individual takes some information off the table, critical information, they are literally obstructing the free agency of the member or investigator. By hiding and withholding important information from members and investigators, you are literally obstructing the free agency of members of the church. And I have a problem with that.
30:25 I believe in the Mormon marketplace of information.
The reality is that church history is absolutely messy and it’s not pretty down there. And there are just problems and we’re in the reality of the information age. We’re in the church essays world. And, um, I don’t understand what I’ve done wrong. All I’m doing is asking. I went through official channels to seek answers to my doubts. And this was after a year of dealing with unofficial Mormon apologists. Fair Mormon and all these guys who are no more legitimate or official than the crazy high priest guy that everybody rolls their eyes to in Sunday school. I was tired of them. I wanted official answers from the church so I went through official channels to get them. The CES director, I went through you to get answers. And the only thing I get in return is threats of excommunication. No answers. Not a single question answered the last three years.
31:40 Um, let me look at my notes real quick. I was hoping for a dialogue tonight. I was hoping to be able to ask my questions and get answers but it’s obvious that I’m not going to get anything tonight. I guess it’s not a real trial. It’s not a real. Like, as far as I’m concerned this is a kangaroo court. As far as I’m concerned, I mean you guys are not interested in helping me. I mean it’s very disturbing. How many minutes do I have left?
Ivins: thirty.
Jeremy: thirty minutes? I mean brethren I don’t, I don’t know how to repent of the truth. I don’t know how to repent of church essay verified facts. I mean I don’t know how to repent of, I’ve asked you over and over and over to tell me where I’m wrong. The real problem here is not whether I’m spreading falsehoods or lies, I’ve never been accused of that. It’s just that I’m public about this information. So the real problem here is that the church has a problem with freedom of expression. The church claims to believe in free agency, but it doesn’t. You can keep your thoughts in your head but the minute that you exercise your freedom of expression, you get thrown into disciplinary council. So, the church doesn’t believe in free agency.
I want to read a couple quotes.
“If a faith will not bear to be investigated, if its preachers and professors are afraid to have it examined, their foundation must be very weak. –George Albert Smith
“Truth has no fear of the light. If an individual or an organization seeks to silence doubt or questioning in the private room or in the town square it is filled with fear and its house is built on sand. And if we have the truth, no harm can come from investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.” – President J. Ruben Clark
Hugh B. Brown, “Now I mention freedom to express your thoughts. But I caution you that your thoughts and expressions must meet competition in the marketplace of thought. And in that competition, truth will emerge triumphant. Only error needs to fear freedom of expression.”
34:55 So, I’m going to respond to a quick accusation. “You have published materials and participated in interviews which have attempted to discredit the church.”
I’m not discrediting the church. The church’s essays are discrediting the church. There’s an essay called “Race and the Priesthood”. Where the brethren who approved these essays, “Today the church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor, or curse.” So, today’s prophet’s, seers and revelators threw yesterday’s prophets, seers and revelators under the bus. We have a record of 130 years of prophets pointing to God for the priesthood ban and it was not just a priesthood ban, it was a temple/exaltation ban because black individuals and black families could not get endowed, or sealed in the temple for 130 years over what the church now calls “a disavowed theory.” A disavowed theory that began with Brigham Young in 1852. It wasn’t because the blacks were not valiant in the pre-existence. It wasn’t revelation. It was a disavowed theory. And the essay says that we disavow that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, yet that contradicts the Book of Mormon. In 2 Nephi 5:21 “And He hath caused a cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against Him that they had become like unto a flint, wherefore as they were white and exceedingly fair and delightsome that they might not be enticing unto my people, the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.” This is the church’s own essay, “Race and the Priesthood” it’s discrediting the church. It’s discrediting the Book of Mormon. It’s discrediting every prophet from Brigham Young all the way to Harold B. Lee. So, it’s not me that’s discrediting the church. It’s the church’s own essay! Its own facts.
Mormon history is discrediting the church. Joseph Smith’s actions and conduct of marrying other men’s wives and 14 year old girls behind Emma’s back is discrediting Joseph Smith. It’s not me that’s discrediting him. Its facts. These are not anti-Mormon lies! It’s amazing to me what was yesterday’s anti-Mormon lies are now today’s Mormon essays! What am I doing here today president? What am I doing here? What error or mistake have I made? Please correct me.
38:03 Book of Mormon, what are 1709 King James Version errors doing in the Book of Mormon? What are 1769 King James Version errors doing in the Book of Mormon? Other scriptures that are fraudulent, The Book of Abraham, this is from the Book of Abraham. It has a church essay. “Neither the rules or the translations in the grammar book correspond to those recognized by Egyptologists today.” Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies. This is in the church’s Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham essay. So the papyri that Joseph Smith translated from, quote unquote translated from, is a standard funerary document. And they expand on it, what is a standard funerary document? These fragments date to between the 3rd century BC and the 1st century C.E. Long after Abraham lived. 2000 years after Abraham lived. It is so bad. The evidence is so damning that the church is trying to sell what is called a catalyst theory. That Joseph Smith did not translate the Book of Abraham, like we were taught growing up in all the different church’s institutions, CES, mutual, Sunday School, that he translated it. It’s no longer he translated, he just maybe touched the papyrus, and he got a revelation what became the Book of Abraham. But that theory, which is bizarre, and contradictory to the evidence, in the journals and the claims of Joseph Smith it doesn’t explain then why Joseph Smith’s translations of the facsimiles are wrong. That they’re incorrect. Both LDS and non LDS Egyptologists agree that the translations of the facsimiles are wrong. Joseph Smith got them wrong. So it’s not me that’s discrediting the church of Joseph Smith, It’s the church’s essays. Essay facts. And Joseph Smith that is discrediting the church and Joseph Smith.
Number 3 express opposition to church leaders including the prophet Joseph Smith. Again, the church’s essays do that just fine. It creates a new narrative that discredits the story that we were told. Discredits the claims of Joseph Smith. I just mentioned some of them. The Book of Abraham, Blacks and the Priesthood, There’s a First Vision Accounts Essay. Joseph Smith wrote several different essays that contradict each other. They evolve. The Book of Mormon Translation, We were taught that Joseph Smith used gold plates to translate the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon we have today and the essay verifies it, was not translated with gold plates. It was used with a rock in a hat. The same rock in a hat that Joseph Smith used to do treasure hunting. But yet, we’re still displaying artwork with Joseph Smith’s fingers over the gold plates. That’s not honest.
So, I was trying to resolve these doubts and concerns. I was seeing this information, I was trying to resolve it by writing the letter to the CES director. It was not my intention to destroy the church or to lead people out of the church, it’s still not my intention. If people are happy in the church, awesome, fantastic. My intention is to get the official answers that I was promised by the CES director three years ago. And I still haven’t received any. So, again, it’s not me that’s discrediting or doing opposition against the church, it’s the church’s own essay verified facts.
42:50 I’ve done nothing wrong. I stand today with my head held high. I’m morally clean. I have a clear conscience that I have done nothing wrong. So, because you guys are not answering my questions, and you guys have not answered my questions the last three years. It is very clear to me that the church does not have answers to its truth crisis. The church does not like individuals asking questions about it’s truth claims. So, this is a kangaroo court. I’m done with this court. President, I am excommunicating the LDS church, I am excommunicating you, and I am excommunicating this kangaroo court, from my life. Here is my resignation letter. Goodbye.
The President wouldn’t even read the entire definition of apostasy? Is this real? A court where no questions are allowed to be asked or answered?
Wow.
I listened to a recording of the whole proceedings on YouTube. .. and it looks like this is transcribed word for word from the audio recording. So yes, Ivins would not let him ask a single question.
Yep, Kangaroo Court.
Hashtag:
#ExcommunicateTheLDSchurchFromYourLife
I believe it’s possible they omitted the rest of the definition in hopes that Jeremy didn’t know what the rest entailed. That however IS speculation on my part……however trivial that may be
My experience (being excommunicated from the LDS Church for apostasy on April 9, 2014) was similar to Jeremy’s. The stake president announced that he had instructed the high council in attendance NOT to respond to ANY of my questions. The questions they posed to me were nonsensical. No one in that meeting — not even the stake president (from what I could deduce) had pre-read ANY of the “transcripts” of my blog (provided to them, perhaps, by Salt Lake), which they used to condemn me. They quoted my words out of context, citing a sentence here, a paragraph there, muddying the waters and poisoning the well so that none of the “yes” men they “hired” to condemn me would have no trouble doing so.
In the end, NOT A SINGLE MEMBER OF THE HIGH COUNCIL voted to excommunicate me…but the stake president did it anyway. (I imagine that’s because he was “trained” to do so by Salt Lake.)
In the end, I “excommunicated” them as well. When one of them DENIED that “Jesus is our personal savior,” implying that SALVATION CAME THROUGH THEM (meaning, these men), I threw up my hands, figuratively, in disgust and conceded that they would HAVE to excommunicate me. I could not belong to such a brainwashed, errant organization.
Unlike Jeremy, I yet BELIEVE in Jesus, Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, etc.
But like Jeremy, I suspect that Peter, James and John NEVER appeared or delivered the Melchizedek priesthood to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. (That’s a myth — or lie — Church leaders later concocted to shore up their “authority” claims. There is NO evidence to substantiate this belief.)
Like Jeremy, I acknowledge that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon using a rock. But this INCREASES my faith. As a “seer,” Joseph could see ANY “translation” he chose to use — and if the King James document adequately served that purpose, so much the better. But could ANYONE “dictate” a book of the complexity and nature of the Book of Mormon while LOOKING IN HIS HAT? I don’t think so.
Yes, the LDS Church has gone off the rails — and will continue to diverge from the truth. But, unlike Jeremy, I wouldn’t throw out EVERYTHING LDS. There is still much truth there…even if the LDS don’t believe it themselves.
Yes, they can. Look at the writings of Tolkein – he even invented a language to go along with his trilogy. What is so complex about BOM? It is full of redundancy, impossibilities and pure fantasy, exactly like Grimm’s Fairytales.
Joseph Smith dictated the BOM out of his hat, in real time, in front of several witnesses, for hours on end, day after day. Tolkein and Grimm did no such thing. Furthermore, the BoM is much more complex, integrated and consistent. Actual locations, cultures and peoples can be associated with the BoM (whereas Tolkein’s and Grimm’s works are obvious fantasy).
@GoodWill2:disqus ,I’m curious. Which “actual locations, cultures and peoples” have been positively associated with the BoM?
As far as the process of “translation”, we have only the testimony of Joseph Smith and his co-conspirators of that. There even conflicting versions of the story from them. Rock in hat, a curtain, spelling out words, urim and thummim…
“Positively” associated? As in “confirmed”?
None.
But the Olmec-Toltec civilizations of MesoAmerica surrounding the isthmus of Tehuantepec make a convincing case for many, as proposed in “An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon,” by John L. Sorenson.
As for Joseph’s “co-conspirators,” if actual fraud in “translation” had been discovered by them, they would have revealed it publicly, especially after they become disaffected and even were excommunicated from the LDS Church by Joseph himself. To their credit, they claimed Joseph became a “fallen prophet” while the Book of Mormon remained true! (That’s some claim for someone to make who isn’t even a Mormon!) The actual witnesses to the process — some later antagonistic to the faith — nonetheless claimed Joseph “translated” the work just as he said he did “by the gift and power of God.”
I believe him.
Have you read the CESLetter? There are no locations, cultural or people that have been discovered that verify anything in the BoM. For example the place names in the BoM are actual places near where Joseph Smith lived in New York
http://www.mazeministry.com/mormonism/holley/holleymaps.htm
It’s a translation! Joseph Smith was translating names for which we possibly have no corollary in our language into words that were familiar to him and that would make some sense to us.
We are quite possibly inundated with “Nephite” material in mesoamerica but we simply cannot “confirm” it because we cannot find the name “Nephi” written anywhere. Much of what we have down there is not translatable by anyone.
While I believe the Book of Mormon to be a true historical record, its value is not in its historicity, but in its spiritual import and message.
That’s wonderful that you believe the BoM has spiritual importance, I have no issue with that. What I take issue with is when you or other people state there are historical evidence for the BoM when there is not.
Have you read An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, by John L. Sorenson? It’s one thing to say we do not have “definitive proof” that so-and-so did it, existed, was there, etc., and quite another to say there is no “historical evidence.” Quite the contrary, we have LOTS of evidence! The evidence we have, however, provides no definitive proof.
Did O.J. Simpson do it? Was there any “evidence”? Did the evidence PROVE he was the culprit? (Some say “yes,” others “no”.) Yet no one disputes that Nicole Brown Simpson was killed.
No one disputes the existence of Olmecs, Toltecs, Maya, etc. What we DON’T know is if these were “Lamanites,” “Jaredites,” “Nephites,” etc. or if they were other cultures into which those subsets were subsumed.
Imagine the difficulty, as an archeologist, of discriminating between “Jewish American” homes and “African American” homes and “Mexican American” homes two thousand years from now, after civil war, decay, and the establishment of other cultures on the same sites have taken their toll on the “evidence.” Perhaps these groups would be indistinguishable, if not unrecognizable. Could a scientist find “evidence” of ancient Native American inhabitants by walking the streets of modern Los Angeles today? Or visiting Wal-mart? Hardly. Imagine being able to do so two thousand years from now!
And yet native inhabitants were with us just as recently as my lifetime. (In fact, they are still among us.)
Yes, I have read Sorenson and nearly every other Mormon apologetic. I was like you once, determined to believe despite the lack of evidence. Are you aware that in the scholastic world, in order to publish and have your work authenticated, it’s necessary to have your work validated by other sources rather than simply have people take your word for it. All researchers and scientists do this, EXCEPT Book of Mormon publishers.
Here is a letter from the Smithsonian Institute as a reply from a Mormon asking what research has been done to verify the claims in the BoM:
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/smithsonianletter.htm
You completely sidestepped my observation above. What say you about that?
The authors of the Book of Mormon never intended it to be a secular scientific tome. It has purely spiritual experiential benefit and application, intended to bring believers unto Christ and to inspire them to know Him. Failing that objective, the reader may find that the Book of Mormon is of no material importance or value.
I have found the Book of Mormon’s spiritual claims to be true. Consequently, I have faith in its material assertions, despite the lack of evidence or any contraindicating evidence regarding its historical or material claims.
I can list numerous current scientific studies that are as misguided as disbelieving the Book of Mormon. (Global warming, anyone?)
I ignored your observation because it is a red herring and deserves no acknowledgement.
All you or anyone else has who believes in the BoM are feelings; feelings that you claim are a testimony of truth.
I have already indicated you can believe whatever you want, just please stop stating your belief/feelings are fact.
I have said nothing of feelings. Nor have I established “feelings” to be the basis of my testimony. That’s YOUR red herring, apparently.
You bore your testimony to me, a tactic to appeal to emotions.
You make a claim that ‘…we DON’T know is if these were lamanites…” Actually, we do know. DNA evidence has confirmed that Native American’s migrated from Asia over the Bering Strait and are not related in any way to Jews:
http://www.heritagedaily.com/2016/01/genetic-data-does-not-support-ancient-trans-atlantic-migration-professor-says-see-more-at-httpnews-ku-edu20151217genetic-data-does-not-support-ancient-trans-atlantic-migration-professor-say/109249
kaylayale,
The Book of Mormon makes clear there were inhabitants of the Americas PRIOR TO the arrival of Lehi. (Nonetheless, there was space here for him and his people. The “ground” had been “cleared” to some extent.) Who were this prior inhabitants? Whence came they? We don’t know. But they very well may have come from Asia (as the research you cited suggests).
What happened to the “seed of Lehi” after they “mingled” with the “native” inhabitants is not clear. Can you speak “definitively” on that matter? Not likely. The BoM states that the Nephites were hunted practically to extinction. What of the “Lamanites”? (EVERYONE not a “Nephite” was called a “Lamanite,” by BoM’s end.) This is the “evidence” cited in the BoM itself (errant conclusions drawn by earlier embracers of the text, notwithstanding).
First, you start with the assumption that people from Jerusalem traveled by boat and submarines to the America’s. You are the one making such a claim, not me, therefore you must prove your claim, it isn’t my responsibility to disprove it. You can’t prove a negative.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
No, they don’t. If I were to meet God, face to face, touch Him, dine with Him, go with Him to heaven and return…and tell you about it…I wouldn’t need to show you extraordinary evidence for any or even all of that to be true. You’d be free to believe me or disbelieve me, as you wish.
Of course, if I said “Do [such and such] and you will have the same experience I did,” what would be your response? You could disbelieve and do nothing differently. Or you could believe and “try the experiment on the word” for yourself.
My “experience” with God — having “tried the experiment” — has given me sufficient reason to continue to believe, despite apparent inconsistencies. The incongruencies, in my opinion, are partly the fault of my own misapprehensions of the evidence, partly the result of my own weakness, and partly the fault of my having an incomplete assembly of ALL of the evidence. (Who does?) Nevertheless, hence my FAITH. (It cannot be otherwise. One simply CANNOT HAVE all the evidence, perfect apprehension of all the evidence (even if they did have all of it), and no weaknesses preventing said apprehension.)
You’re right. I can’t prove a negative. But finding God just once disproves all the “evidence” that He does not exist. The fact that YOU have not found Him hampers me not in the slightest.
Your statement is a fallacy because it’s a false claim, since you have not done as you propose. Do you really think that just by making a supposition that you could see god is enough to suggest that he does?
If extraordinary evidence isn’t enough, then why did Jesus appear to the Nephites? If physical evidence wasn’t necessary, then he didn’t have to appear to them for them to believe. According to your own scripture, the Nephites lived in 100 years of peace, BECAUSE of physically seeing Jesus.
Andrea Yates killed her children because god told her to. Do you really think I should believe her claim simply because she made it?
Again, you leap to another erroneous conclusion, claiming I have not done as I propose.
My faith in God is based on my EXPERIENCES with God, not on mere confidence in the spurious claims made by others (though those claims, no doubt, inspired me to “experiment on the word” for myself).
Jesus appeared to the FAITHFUL (those who had NOT stoned and rejected the prophets). He did NOT appear to the wicked, faithless and unbelieving. (A rather curious anomaly is the heavenly apparitions enjoyed by those 300 would-be murders coming to slay Nephi and Lehi in prison. It was the great faith of Nephi and Lehi that allowed those miscreants to escape the clutches of damnation and receive a heavenly witness for themselves. Would that we could all be so blessed!)
There were many who did not recognize Jesus on the day of His visit at Bountiful, but NONE who were present rejected Him. It was enough, apparently, that they did not side with those evildoers who chose to do evil rather than good. We all possess the same power and opportunity to do likewise.
I believe MOST of the claims of the LDS now are unbelievable (should not be believed), primarily because they are unsupportable either by acknowledged scripture or recorded experience. MUCH of what the LDS claim is simply made up nonsense. (I recommend Rob Smith’s free book at upwardthought.blogspot.com entitled “Teaching for Doctrine the Commandments of Men: Tradition in Modern Mormonism.” It separates the wheat from the chaff in Mormon doctrine and practice.)
The truthful part of Mormon doctrine and history ought to be cherished and embraced. At this point, unfortunately, only personal experience can help one deduce truth from fiction, as many “lying” testimonies are afoot. (I guess they always have been.)
As for “submarines,” imagine a water-tight barge with a SHAFT through its middle (making for a “hole” in the top and the bottom of the barge). This SHAFT could be accessed near the top by an opening into the shaft (like an elevator door), allowing for waste to be removed and fresh air to enter. The water from below would bob up and down in the shaft (creating a sort of “pump-action,” which could be used to redirect air flow. The shaft design would otherwise prevent ocean waves from striking with force against any opening in the vessel. An ingenious design, in fact.
Yes! You have a great imagination! So did Leonardo DiVinci when he drew a flying machine. However, his great imagination didn’t make the airplane appear in the sky.
kaylayale, you appear to be arguing for the sake of argument.
First, you scoff at the idea of a barge with a hole in both top and bottom, calling it a “submarine,” then dismiss as irrelevant a proposed design that would satisfy both the description and its practical application.
I don’t have to PROVE there was a barge like that described. My faith may be bolstered, however, by surmising how one might actually exist. The boat, you may recall (a work of men’s hands) wasn’t the miracle, but the lighting thereof. All the evidence in the world will not convince the skeptic, but one touch by the hand of God, illuminating the understanding of one, may do so.
You can believe anything you choose to believe.
Such nostrums do not address the issues (though they may palliate your reluctance and failure to do so).
I have repeatedly addreseed facts. I have no interest in a dialogue that has me addressing facts and you responding with feeling based testimony.
yes, obvious fantasies, as is Smith’s. Of course you know the witnesses have been discredited. Oliver Cowdery was not right in the head. Oliver cowdery admitted that he ‘saw’ the plates as in he saw it in his own mind. 3 or or so witnesses were Smith’s own family. Too much plagarizing of the 1611 King James version of the bible. “and it came to pass” is said over 2500 times. There is mention of animals, crops, metals, etc., in some land where those items had not even been discovered during that time. Where are all the thousands upon thousands of bones from the trecherous battle at Hill Cumorah. Where are any artifacts found from any ancient city mentioned. The description of the ark is that it had no windows, two plugs at the top and at the bottom, so that when the ark was upright they unplugged the top holes for breathing. Kinderhook plates an obvious hoax admitted by the man who made them to trick Smith. The transcription of a papyrus which was an obvious and admitted fraud. Written in some kind of ancient egyptian script which to this day has never been found anywhere else in the world. Ol Joe was convicted of fortune telling among other things in New York. Yeah pretty consistent. Consistently a lie and a fraud.
Its not so much the obvious frauds, which is bad enough, but it is the insult to my intelligence, common sense, and rational thought that is the worst.
Your commentary deserves a response, which I will give as soon as I get close to a computer.
I have responded to the accusations of the CES letter in great detail on my blog, in200wordsorless.blogspot.com.
Can’t you just feel the Savior’s love in this gathering? I did. Mr Ivins was so open minded and forgiving, just like Christ eh? They articulated and answered every question that the accused had. Just like we do in civil/secular courts. I was inspired by the fact that ALL in attendance have read the CES letter at least ONCE to make a critical yet fair and balanced assessment of Mr Runnells’s claims. They wholly agreed with him that the LDS Essays concur with his own findings. In the end, I think Jeremy was given a fair shake in this court of love.
/sarcasm off
Runnells a faggot, a two bit crying hack.
I don’t see where is sexuality is addressed. He is a husband and father and finding inconsistencies in church history and doctrine are not related to one’s sexuality.
I don’t think that you would be so free to expose your ignorance and bigotry if your real name were attached to this comment, Austin.
OMFG!!! You totally missed the point. Lol!!!! Idiot! Calling him a faggot is a south park reference. Look it up. He’s not a gay faggot. He’s extremely annoying. All you cry babies on here make laugh.
Oh you did it! You exposed me! Austin John at your service! Why isn’t your real name attached to your comments, you hypocritical retard?!
So sad, that you show your ignorance through abusive language.
That’s all you’ve got? Name calling like a second grader? That’s what people do who have nothing constructive to contribute.
Hey, Pres. Ivins. How’s the wife and kids?
Thanks for posting this information. It’s hard for a believer to take, but It’s not a bad thing to face it. I watched the video of the court. As a defender of the faith, I was saddened by the way Jeremy was treated by the SP. I think there might be some backstory there that might explain it, but it kind of seems indefensible. I’m sorry Jeremy was treated that way. As for the CES Letter itself…I lost my testimony of many literal aspects of the gospel many years ago, but recently have had a renewed energy and love of Mormonism and religion in general through the nuanced views of scripture and prophets I’ve learned through Richard Bushman, Terryl Givens, Adam Miller, as well as some of the Progressive Christian leaders like Marcus Borg. I feel there are answers to the issues in the CES Letter, but they are very complex and usually require a significant paradigm shift. ie many LDS have a very literal/fundamentalistic (speaking as a generic religion term not specific reference to the Fundamentalist Mormon branch) view of the gospel. If you are faced with CES Letter type information and either can’t or prefer not to shift away from that literal/rigid/fundamentalisitic view of religion, you will leave the church very quickly. I discuss this more in depth as well as give a point by point review of the historical information from the CES Letter in this article. http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/ces-letter/ Of course, this also introduces the question, is this new nuanced perspective valid within the church and acceptable to the leadership of the church? That’s a valid question which I spend a lot of time writing about as well.
kaylayale, MerryJune, etc.
Not to derail this thread (which discusses the merits of Jeremy Runnells’ case), I have addressed many, if not all of the points Jeremy uses to discredit the LDS Church in a post on my blog:
http://in200wordsorless.blogspot.com/2014/06/33-reasons-to-leave-mormon-church.html
It is easier to read those arguments there than to recite them here.
Jeremy now disbelieves. (As he should. Not all — or even MOST — of the LDS Church’s claims are true.) However, Jeremy ought not disbelieve in Christ or the Book of Mormon. He has rightly rejected the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture, but, in so doing, I believe he has thrown out the baby with the bathwater.
There never was a baby in the bathwater, only a bunch of crap in a toilet…FLUSH IT DOWN…IT STINKS. Do you get paid by the church GoodWill2? Just curious? I’ve put thousands of hours into researching the history of the church. Initially to prove it to be true (I was a 35 yr. member). Unfortunately for the LDS church, I love the truth. The Mythbusters took ostrich dung and proved that it could be polished up nice and shinny by working it and molding it with their hands for a long period of time. Google it. It worked. It was shinny, hard looked nice and polished and it took a long time for them to get it that way. But it worked. That does not change the fact that it was ostrich dung. I know the Book of Mormon is untrue. It comes from many good books, some of which are very Godly/Inspiring. I know because I read all of them and found Book of Mormon stories that I cherish within them. Ultimately, I would hope those who leave the Mormon church would find God, Yaway, the God of you and I. I would hope they would have the born again experience by accepting Jesus Christ’s gift which is a gift given with the only precondition being acceptance or belief in his sacrifice. His yoke is light, easy to carry, he fills us with the everlasting waters of life if we will drop our self righteous pride and humble ourselves to hear and see.
Good Will is far from being a shill for the LDS Inc. since he has not only been ex;d but has been ordered by court order to never set foot on church property. Read his blog…there’s some good stuff there.
Jbird, could you give me the list of books that you have read that the Book of Mormon comes from?
Jeremy you’re the bomb!!!!!!!!