A Missive From Meeker

Joel Meeker racks petulance up to a new level. Remember Meeker, the guy who laid into Aaron Dean in 2008, then offered a sullen apology? Here's the kind of thing that presses Meeker's righteous indignation button.

Subject: EF: Alternative Forum findings

From Joel Meeker, Milford OH

Following the Council’s communiqué, in the ministerial newsletter, concerning its retreat discussions and its finding that there was nothing wrong with the alternative internet forum, I thought it might be useful to give a description of what it was, so that we can clearly understand what was and is being discussed. Some don’t read longer posts, so the most salient points have been bolded so you can skim and find them quickly.

The Rules of the Elders Forum state “The PURPOSE of Elders Forum will be to use a vehicle by which we can communicate in a professional manner on issues facing the General Conference of Elders and Church.” I believe these ethical concerns about the alternative forum are grave issues facing the GCE now. I shall do my best to respect the EF rules while attempting to deal with a sensitive and somewhat emotionally charged issue.

The Council communiqué last Thursday defended the rescission resolution by referring to a “legal opinion that to have concerns and not to do so would be unethical.” According to that legal opinion, we are bound to speak up and try to change things if we have ethical concerns. We have such issues before us now.

After conducting a personal investigation, outside of any work done on or for the Council, and without using any information that came from executive sessions of the Council, I was eventually able to get input from several men who were on the alternative forum and decided to leave it, or were dropped from it. I will do my best to present the findings as dispassionately as possible, not to undermine anyone’s reputation as the EF rules and Christianity forbid, and will limit my personal opinion to the last paragraphs of this post.

These alternative forums have existed for several years, until the latest one was closed shortly before the ballot last May, when elders started asking pointed questions about it. One could ask why, if there was nothing wrong with this forum, it would be shut down once its existence became more widely known and questions were being asked about it. It would have had time to affect the balloting of the elders participating.

Elders entered the forum circle only by invitation, that is, the gatekeeper contacted individual elders who might fit the profile being sought. The elders apparently had to be vetted by an authority of the forum who then decided if the prospective participant’s outlook fit. This was not just a group of old friends talking things over. Men were solicited who hardly knew the gatekeeper. Before being admitted, elders had to give their word that they would never divulge the names of the elders on the forum or the comments that were made – including if they chose to leave the forum later on. Apparently, elders who didn’t display the desired attitude in their comments could be and sometimes were dropped.

According to the information given to me, the forum was mostly a platform for criticizing our administration, and members of previous Councils who supported the administration in a traditional, conservative view of how the Church should operate and who were in favor of the relocation. One elder who left the forum when he discovered what it was like described it as “very offensive.” Since the following information was discussed openly at the Council retreat, since the Council found that there was nothing wrong with the alternative forum, and since permission was given to share non-executive-session information, there’s no reason we shouldn’t all know that Paul Kieffer set up the forum and was the gatekeeper. At least one other presently-serving Council member was also part of it.

The Council communiqué reads in part: “It [the Council] acknowledges that forums have existed in the past, but there was little merit to the descriptions given as to size or negative intent…. The Council is sufficiently convinced that there was no block voting or attempt to bloc vote” (emphasis mine).

Since these conclusions are very much at odds with what I learned from several former participants, it would be helpful to know how the Council reached these conclusions:

· Did the Council read all, or some, or any, of the posts from the alternative forum/s?

· How many former participants were interviewed?

· On whose testimony did the Council base its findings?

· Is the Council “sufficiently convinced” there was no negative intent based solely on the statements of the man or men on the Council itself who set up the forum and/or participated in it?

· If so, should that be considered unbiased testimony?

· Should the Council recuse itself from this matter to avoid what appears to be an obvious and serious conflict of interest?

· Should the GCE set up its own independent committee of inquiry?

I suppose depending on our personal outlooks, some might not be shocked by such a situation and such conduct in the ministry. It is very sad to me that fellow elders have defended, even on this forum, such behavior, which I find completely unethical and unacceptable. If this is considered acceptable ethical behavior by some elders in United, I can only wonder how much common ground we will be able to find in matters of ethics and moral principles. We must be in agreement on those principles if we are to trust one another and to work together.

Nice guy!