Jeremy Runnells Excommunicated

[Jeanne]

8 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I think if you resign you can't be rebaptized by proxy when you die.

I was worried about that..

[consiglieri]

20 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I have to disagree.  I did read it carefully, responded at length, and I think it demonstrates why Jesus said of the Parable of the Sower, "Know ye not this parable?  How then can ye know all parables?"  Soil, nurture, and patience can make huge difference in the harvest from the same seeds, whether nothing, or a hundred fold.  I find what I have harvested both abundant and nourishing.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

For what it is worth coming from me, Kevin, I believe all fields may be harvested to some degree, and I will say without reservation that I have seldom seen anybody reap more from the field of Mormonism than you have.

 

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

P.S. For the record, I believe Mormonism has depths beyond depths that still await harvesting.  One of my beefs with the Church is that the current leadership seem less interested in harvesting the field that is Mormonism than in spraying it with herbicide.

[Buckeye]

12 hours ago, Sky said:

I'm tired of certain angry, ex-Mormons attacking my faith and getting uncontested slam dunks.

What would you propose? The dunks are "uncontested" because the church chooses not to publicly address individual disciplinary matters for 99.99% of cases. I tend to agree with the church's policy, but if you're upset by it, you need to take it up with the church, not with "angry, ex-Mormons."

[flameburns623]

I actually asked permission of Moderation to post this several hours prior to the event, as there were Facebook posts about a vigil on his behalf.

And, Jeremy Runnells created some last minute additional drama by requesting he be permitted to bring an ASL interpreter to the hearing.

The Stake President declined permission for this, which I felt was wrong-headed. There is apparently even mention in the Church Handbook that provision be made for such a circumstance.

Not that Runnells should have been permitted to bring "his own" interpreter, since thw CH spells out that the ASL interpreter be instructed to "observe privacy", (my paraphrase). The person Runnells would have brought would almost certainly have been an activist in rheir own right.

In case anyone wonders: apparently religious institutions are exempted from ADA requirements. The actual lawyers in this board can weigh in if they choose on whether this is true and/or if Jeremy is likely to have any legal recourse as a result of being denied a 'Terp. (That's slang in the Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing community for "interpreter").

I felt this was bad publicity for the Church and creates an appearance of insensitivity where one may not have existed.  Runnells has worn cochlear implants his whole life, has auffered serious decline in hearing of late, and an accomodation probably could have been managed.

That aside, I've glanced over Jeremy Runnells' history, listened to some podcasts where he was interviewed, seen various goid faith efforts by FAIR-LDS and NAMI to respond to Runnells; and this train wreck has been a very l-o-n-g t-i-m-e coming. He should have moved on some time back.

He is reportedly in-hospital today enduring surgery to attempt to fix his hearing. Despite yesterday's sad outcome, I hope the Saints will join with me in praying for a successful outcome and speedy recovery.

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

I actually asked permission of Moderation to post this several hours prior to the event, as there were Facebook posts about a vigil on his behalf.

And, Jeremy Runnells created some last minute additional drama by requesting he be permitted to bring an ASL interpreter to the hearing.

The Stake President declined permission for this, which I felt was wrong-headed. There is apparently even mention in the Church Handbook that provision be made for such a circumstance.

Not that Runnells should have been permitted to bring "his own" interpreter, since thw CH spells out that the ASL interpreter be instructed to "observe privacy", (my paraphrase). The person Runnells would have brought would almost certainly have been an activist in rheir own right.

In case anyone wonders: apparently religious institutions are exempted from ADA requirements. The actual lawyers in this board can weigh in if they choose on whether this is true and/or if Jeremy is likely to have any legal recourse as a result of being denied a 'Terp. (That's slang in the Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing community for "interpreter").

I felt this was bad publicity for the Church and creates an appearance of insensitivity where one may not have existed.  Runnells has worn cochlear implants his whole life, has auffered serious decline in hearing of late, and an accomodation probably could have been managed.

That aside, I've glanced over Jeremy Runnells' history, listened to some podcasts where he was interviewed, seen various goid faith efforts by FAIR-LDS and NAMI to respond to Runnells; and this train wreck has been a very l-o-n-g t-i-m-e coming. He should have moved on some time back.

He is reportedly in-hospital today enduring surgery to attempt to fix his hearing. Despite yesterday's sad outcome, I hope the Saints will join with me in praying for a successful outcome and speedy recovery.

He was interviewed on mormonstories, of which is on youtube and he didn't use an ASL interpreter there, he seemed fine without one so maybe the leaders saw that clip and figured he didn't need one. I hope his hearing comes back if anything

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

What was unfair about the hearing?

What parameters set by the SP were unreasonable?

A disciplinary council is not an appropriate venue for hashing out or arguing about Church doctrines/beliefs, problematic aspects of Church history, etc.  Do you disagree with that?  If so, could you explain your position?

Thanks,

-Smac

It is my understanding that Jeremy requested a hearing/deaf interpreter so that he could have a clear understanding of what was being said by court members at his hearing.  This was denied by the SP.

He requested the opportunity to have witnesses who would testify in his behalf.  This request was denied by his SP

He requested to be able to have his many questions that had been submitted to his SP 18 months earlier answered.  This request was denied

If problematic aspects of church history ARE part of your defense...then yes the accused should be able to bring up whatever evidence supports their defense. The SP felt otherwise

I think he finally believed that it was nothing more than a kangaroo court (his words not mine) that the fix was in and there was no point in his attending a court that was stacked against him so yeah he just threw in the towel...I mean why bother right?  The decision of the court was in even before the court was held...or so it seems

Edited April 18, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[consiglieri]

1 minute ago, Johnnie Cake said:

 

I think he finally believed that it was nothing more than a kangaroo court (his words not mine) that the fix was in and there was no point in his attending a court that was stacked against him so yeah he just threw in the towel...I mean way bother right?  The decision of the court was in even before the court was held...or so it seems

I guess if the Church can't answer a member's questions, they have no alternative except to excommunicate.

[cinepro]

52 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

What would you propose? The dunks are "uncontested" because the church chooses not to publicly address individual disciplinary matters for 99.99% of cases. I tend to agree with the church's policy, but if you're upset by it, you need to take it up with the church, not with "angry, ex-Mormons."

I think that analogy from Elder Maxwell conjures images of a physical basketball game, with the Church mounting a vigorous defense to stop the other team from making easy shots. 

Sadly, this hasn't seemed to be the case for many issues, with the Church's response (or non-response) coming off more like a coach whining from the sidelines about why the dunk should be ignored or the points disqualified on a technicality, with the ultimate victory only to be secured by getting the other team kicked out of the league.

Edited April 18, 2016 by cinepro

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I guess if the Church can't answer a member's questions, they have no alternative except to excommunicate.

I don't understand what you mean, can you elaborate?

Jeremy obviously wasn't excommunicated because he had unanswerable questions but it seems like that's what you are saying.

I have a ton of unanswered questions, most of which I've asked here and at church, and no one's really batted an eye, let alone convened a DC. 

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

He was interviewed on mormonstories, of which is on youtube and he didn't use an ASL interpreter there, he seemed fine without one so maybe the leaders saw that clip and figured he didn't need one.

Having a father who is hard of hearing, I know that it makes a difference (at least for him) if it's a one-on-one conversation vs. him being in a group setting where several there may be speaking back and forth.  He does quite well with the first situation and not at all well with the second scenario (which would be the case with a court setting).  This may be how it is for Runnells too.  Either way, I saw no harm in providing him an interpreter. 

.

Edited April 18, 2016 by ALarson

[Johnnie Cake]

19 minutes ago, Duncan said:

He was interviewed on mormonstories, of which is on youtube and he didn't use an ASL interpreter there, he seemed fine without one so maybe the leaders saw that clip and figured he didn't need one. I hope his hearing comes back if anything

Really? So that makes the SP refusal to allow an interpreter right?  Shouldn't it be up to the individual in need of the interpreter to make that decision?  Wouldn't that have been the right thing to do? Plus this is an emotionally charged event...doesn't he have the right to be able to hear and understand what is going on?  The SP didn't think so...so youre going to defend the SP on this? wow

I once saw a polo survivor walk without a wheelchair...so I guess we should never provide this person with a wheelchair right? If they didn't need it that one time...well then we with the ability to walk should make the decision on future wheelchair needs right? Honestly I think the SP was just on a power trip...why else refuse this reasonable request...unless he just didn't want outside witnesses...

Edited April 18, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[consiglieri]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't understand what you mean, can you elaborate?

Jeremy obviously wasn't excommunicated because he had unanswerable questions but it seems like that's what you are saying.

I have a ton of unanswered questions, most of which I've asked here and at church, and no one's really batted an eye, let alone convened a DC. 

From what I understand in listening to Jeremy Runnel's interviews, he had a list of questions he submitted to the now infamous "CES director."

The CES director did not provide any answers.

Jeremy was then called in for meetings with his bishop and stake president about the issue.  Jeremy said he had some questions and the bishop, at least, promised to get him some answers.

No answers were forthcoming.

About a year and a half later, after hearing nothing, Jeremy got a call from his bishop.

Jeremy thought that maybe, just maybe, the bishop was calling with some answers.

But no, the bishop was calling to convene a disciplinary council for Jeremy on Valentine's Day.

I have heard nothing of any attempts to answer Jeremy's questions.

Now maybe there were, and maybe there weren't, and I grant I am only hearing this from Jeremy's perspective.

But I am not going to credit a non-existent other side of the story when the church leaders involved refuse to even place their version of events on the record.

So the bottom line is that, to all appearances, Jeremy was excommunicated for asking questions his Church could not answer.

This is understandably troublesome to many.

 

[consiglieri]

9 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I think that analogy from Elder Maxwell conjures images of a physical basketball game, with the Church mounting a vigorous defense to stop the other team from making easy shots. 

Sadly, this hasn't seemed to be the case for many issues, with the Church's response (or non-response) coming off more like a coach whining from the sidelines about why the dunk should be ignored or the points disqualified on a technicality, with the ultimate victory only to be secured by getting the other team kicked out of the league.

The LDS Church has managed to come off looking like the Washington Generals . . .

[flameburns623]

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

He was interviewed on mormonstories, of which is on youtube and he didn't use an ASL interpreter there, he seemed fine without one so maybe the leaders saw that clip and figured he didn't need one. I hope his hearing comes back if anything

Telephone interview, I believe. And even then, he had problems with one or two questions.

Phones can be amplified and special equipment used. And on a phone ypu generally are speaking to ONE person. Jeremy said something about nerve damage relative to his hearing.

I am Hard-of-Hearing and wear hearing aids (but do not sign), so I have some sense of the issues: in a room with two or more people, my attention may have to be so intent upon ONE speaker that, if another jumps in, I will not understand a blessed thing the second person says. 

My concentration has to be maintained at a much higher level than a Hearing person's, making conversations in public settings more mentally tiring, with all the ramifications of what weariness can do to a person. Confusion, a brittle temper, a growing wish to just acquiesce and get out.

Attending Sacrament Meetings on Sundays are quite draining on me: I can only imagine what an adversarial hearing might be like. And Runnells is, pending outcome of this latest surgery, legally Deaf. Much more handicapped than I. 

Again, having a Church- provided 'Terp wouldn't have changed the outcome, I think. Nor should it, IMHO. Jeremy drove this truck over the cliff with malice aforethought.

[Duncan]

Just now, Johnnie Cake said:

Really? So that makes the SP refusal to allow an interpreter right?  Shouldn't it be up to the individual in need of the interpreter to make that decision?  Wouldn't that have been the right thing to do? Plus this is an emotionally charged event...doesn't he have the right to be able to hear and understand what is going on?  The SP didn't think so...so youre going to defend the SP on this? wow

I once saw a polo survivor walk without a wheelchair...so I guess we should never provide this person with a wheelchair right? If they didn't need it that one time...well then we with the ability to walk should make the decision on future wheelchair needs right? Honestly I think the SP was just on a power trip...why else refuse this reasonable request...unless he just didn't want outside witnesses...

Power trip of the SP? oh Puh-leeze!!!!! he seemed fine on the video and where was the interpreter when he was doing this, when he was in control of it?

 

[cinepro]

For those who wonder why Runnells even wanted to still be a member of the Church after having publicly expressed his loss of belief, I asked him during a conversation at Reddit, and this was his response:

Although I do not identify as a Mormon in the traditional sense, I take pride in my pioneer blood. Many of my ancestors were converted in England, traveled across the plains, and helped establish the church in Salt Lake as well as in LDS colonies outside of Utah. My ancestors made incredible sacrifices to live the gospel. I don’t want to turn my back on my heritage or the beautiful and powerful experiences I have enjoyed as a member of the church. In that sense, I am a Mormon even though I do not believe fundamental doctrines and do not consider myself a member of the LDS church. For those same reasons, I have not removed my name from church records. In some ways, I am holding on to a piece of a previous life.

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

oh Puh-leeze!!!!! he seemed fine on the video and where was the interpreter when he was doing this, when he was in control of it?

Both flameburns and I have addressed his possible hearing issues.  I think you should stop with this line of criticism.

.

Edited April 18, 2016 by ALarson

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, flameburns623 said:

Telephone interview, I believe. And even then, he had problems with one or two questions.

Phones can be amplified and special equipment used. And on a phone ypu generally are speaking to ONE person. Jeremy said something about nerve damage relative to his hearing.

I am Hard-of-Hearing and wear hearing aids (but do not sign), so I have some sense of the issues: in a room with two or more people, my attention may have to be so intent upon ONE speaker that, if another jumps in, I will not understand a blessed thing the second person says. 

My concentration has to be maintained at a much higher level than a Hearing person's, making conversations in public settings more mentally tiring, with all the ramifications of what weariness can do to a person. Confusion, a brittle temper, a growing wish to just acquiesce and get out.

Attending Sacrament Meetings on Sundays are quite draining on me: I can only imagine what an adversarial hearing might be like. And Runnells is, pending outcome of this latest surgery, legally Deaf. Much more handicapped than I. 

Again, having a Church- provided 'Terp wouldn't have changed the outcome, I think. Nor should it, IMHO. Jeremy drove this truck over the cliff with malice aforethought.

I was talking about this interview

I obviously have no problem seeing he has hearing issues but this need for a ASL interpreter and the SP nor providing one is totally bogus if you ask me

[Johnnie Cake]

Quote

Power trip of the SP? oh Puh-leeze!!!!! he seemed fine on the video and where was the interpreter when he was doing this, when he was in control of it?

Fair enough, I'll put your vote down for denying the disabled the tools and support they need to mitigate their disability.

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

I obviously have no problem seeing he has hearing issues but this need for a ASL interpreter and the SP nor providing one is totally bogus if you ask me

Wow.  Not cool.  You need to stop this.  There are enough issues to be unhappy with Runnells over without you accusing him of having a "bogus" hearing problem.  Isn't he in for surgery today? Did you even read my post and flameburns explaining the difference between a "one-on-one" conversations vs. a group setting where many may be speaking?

.

Edited April 18, 2016 by ALarson

[Duncan]

Just now, Johnnie Cake said:

Fair enough, I'll put your vote down for denying the disabled the tools and support they need to mitigate their disability.

he did it to himself, he requested something he clearly didn't need as shown by two videos and that's Duncan with a capital D

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I was talking about this interview

I obviously have no problem seeing he has hearing issues but this need for a ASL interpreter and the SP nor providing one is totally bogus if you ask me

Maybe you've heard but this is when he was able to hear much better than now.

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I think if you resign you can't be rebaptized by proxy when you die.

CHI 3.7.9    
"Persons Who Were Excommunicated or Had Their Names Removed from Church Records

First Presidency approval is required to perform temple ordinances for deceased persons who, at the time of their death, were excommunicated or had their names removed from Church membership records. A letter should be written to the Office of the First Presidency. No form is required. (CHI)

[Duncan]

Just now, Tacenda said:

Maybe you've heard but this is when he was able to hear much better than now.

so why no interpreter at the press conference of his own choosing?  was he just walking out of the building and all of sudden he was swarmed with people asking him questions? 

[VideoGameJunkie]

Who wears jeans to church, especially a disciplinary council?