LDS I'm going to read Jeremy Runnel's Letter

[Rescued One]

dzheremi, thank you for piquing my interest. I recall being told that disobedience to Mormon laws and ordinances causes questions to arise; I learned to stop asking questions --- I wouldn't receive answers anyway.

If anyone wants to read Jeremy's questions, here is the link:

https://cesletter.org/Letter-to-a-CES-Director.pdf

 

[Rescued One]

Oh, I got as far as pages 54 and 55 and that's about as far as I want to go for now.

 

[Ironhold]

Old hat.

Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/Letter to a CES Director - FairMormon

 

[dzheremi]

The result of the letter is here (surreptitious recording of the court convened to pass judgment upon Mr. Runnels -- 44 minutes):

No matter what criticism the LDS may have of the content of Mr. Runnels' letter, the way that he is treated in this court is pretty discouraging. There will probably be many after him in a similar predicament who will leave if they are treated in a similar fashion.

 

[Rescued One]

That "court" was rude and ridiculous and not the least bit surprising. What is sad is that so many who are raised in it and decide to leave endorse atheism when they come out. But God will draw whom He will and I am blessed with faith in the true Triune God. How amazing God's love is.

 

[Rescued One]

Oh, my! From the letter:
If some of these marriages were non-sexual “dynastic” “eternal” sealings only, as theorized by the Church and apologists, why would Joseph need to be sealed to a mother and daughter set? The mother would be sealed to the daughter and would become part of Joseph’s afterlife family through the sealing to her mother. Further, Joseph died without being sealed to his children or to his parents 17. If a primary motive of these “sealings” was to be connected in the afterlife, as claimed by the Church and apologists, what does it say about Joseph’s priorities and motives to be sealed to a non-related and already married woman (Patty Sessions 18) and her 23-year-old already married daughter (Sylvia Sessions 19) than it was to be sealed to his own parents and to his own children? •

Joseph was married/sealed to at least 22 other women and girls before finally being sealed to his first legal wife, Emma, on May 28, 1843 20. Emma was not aware of most of these other girls/women and their marriages to her husband. Why was “elect lady 21” Emma the 23rd wife to be sealed to Joseph?
p. 54
https://cesletter.org/Letter-to-a-CES-Director.pdf

 

[Rescued One]

Duplicate post.

 

[Rescued One]

Same post showed up 3 times!

 

[dzheremi]

Thank you for starting this thread, Phoebe Ann, and linking to what I assume is the current version of the CES letter. I believe it is updated since I first saw it, around the time I started interacting with Mormons here (c. 2016, I think). There's a lot to digest in it, and maybe some of it is wrong (I'm not an atheist, obviously, so I'm not so convinced by some of the claims against the Bible, which have perfectly fine non-Mormon answers), but it is still strange to me that the Mormon leaders wouldn't take it and use it as a teaching opportunity, i.e., sit down with Mr. Runnels and go through his concerns, as he was asking them to. Instead they just kick him out for publishing it in the first place, as though it wasn't a last resort to save his faith! It just seems so careless and heartless of these men who are supposed to be leaders. It's a very sad story all around, as Mr. Runnels seems like a bright and sincere young man. It shows that they don't care.

 

[Ironhold]

Thank you for starting this thread, Phoebe Ann, and linking to what I assume is the current version of the CES letter. I believe it is updated since I first saw it, around the time I started interacting with Mormons here (c. 2016, I think). There's a lot to digest in it, and maybe some of it is wrong (I'm not an atheist, obviously, so I'm not so convinced by some of the claims against the Bible, which have perfectly fine non-Mormon answers), but it is still strange to me that the Mormon leaders wouldn't take it and use it as a teaching opportunity, i.e., sit down with Mr. Runnels and go through his concerns, as he was asking them to. Instead they just kick him out for publishing it in the first place, as though it wasn't a last resort to save his faith! It just seems so careless and heartless of these men who are supposed to be leaders. It's a very sad story all around, as Mr. Runnels seems like a bright and sincere young man. It shows that they don't care.

It's my understanding that the original version of the letter was *very* acidic and accusatory in tone, raising the prospect that everyone perceived him to be in some sort of attack mode. It's only in later revisions that the tone was moderated.

 

[dzheremi]

Hmm. I can't speak to that, but if it's true, I'm glad he changed his tone.

 

[Rescued One]

The police say, "Don't change your story every time you answer our questions; it makes you look suspicious."

From the CES Letter:

David Whitmer, one of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon, had this to say about the Priesthood restoration: “I never heard that an Angel had ordained Joseph and Oliver to the Aaronic Priesthood until the year 1834[,] [183]5, or [183]6 – in Ohio…I do not believe that John the Baptist ever ordained Joseph and Oliver…”
– Early Mormon Documents, 5:137 3

Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery changed the wording of an earlier revelation when they compiled the 1835 Doctrine & Covenants, adding verses about the appearances of Elijah, John the Baptist, and Peter, James, and John as if those appearances were mentioned in the earlier revelation in the Book of Commandments, which they weren’t.
Compare the 1833 Book of Commandments Chapter 28 (XXVIII) 4 to the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants Section 50 (L) 5 . The chapter in modern Doctrine and Covenants is D&C 27.

(Read the rest of this on pp. 81-82!)

https://cesletter.org/Letter-to-a-CES-Director.pdf

Links:
Book of Commandments, 1833, Page 60

Doctrine and Covenants 27

 

[Rescued One]

Thank you for starting this thread, Phoebe Ann, and linking to what I assume is the current version of the CES letter. I believe it is updated since I first saw it, around the time I started interacting with Mormons here (c. 2016, I think). There's a lot to digest in it, and maybe some of it is wrong (I'm not an atheist, obviously, so I'm not so convinced by some of the claims against the Bible, which have perfectly fine non-Mormon answers), but it is still strange to me that the Mormon leaders wouldn't take it and use it as a teaching opportunity, i.e., sit down with Mr. Runnels and go through his concerns, as he was asking them to. Instead they just kick him out for publishing it in the first place, as though it wasn't a last resort to save his faith! It just seems so careless and heartless of these men who are supposed to be leaders. It's a very sad story all around, as Mr. Runnels seems like a bright and sincere young man. It shows that they don't care.

When they ordain new leaders each ward is asked to raise the right hand if they sustain those leaders. I thought, "Why are we asked to sustain people in Salt lake City whom we've never met?" Well, I didn't want to find out what would happen if a person opposed!

 

[Ironhold]

When they ordain new leaders each ward is asked to raise the right hand if they sustain those leaders. I thought, "Why are we asked to sustain people in Salt lake City whom we've never met?" Well, I didn't want to find out what would happen if a person opposed!

If you're a member of any sort of organized religious hierarchy, by definition it means you should be supporting the leadership at all levels by default unless you know of specific matters that need to be brought forward.