Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
smac97

Jeremy Runnells Excommunicated

Recommended Posts

Just now, ALarson said:

Wow.  Not cool.  You need to stop this.  There are enough issues to be unhappy with Rummells 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 settings where many many be speaking?

did you not see the video of him in the open air of windy old Utah with a group of people? I think he's trying to score points against people and I ain't buying it

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, JAHS said:

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)

Thanks for the official info on the matter!

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

 

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 would like to hear the SP's side of the story though of course this is unlikely to happen given the Church policy (which I agree with keeping except in extreme situations which I don't believe this is one).  I wonder if an option of have a Church provided interpreter was offered, but there would be a delay of the court if so and this could have been not acceptable to Runnells while having his interpreter at the court was felt to be against the rules by the SP.  Or if Runnell did not make the request until he showed up at the court with his interpreter when he could have made the request earlier.  If it was just flat out rejected because it was believed Runnells' wouldn't have a problem with it, that is troubling if Runnells' took the time to explain why it was needed and just didn't demand they use his interpreter.  

There are reasonable reasons why he needed them, whether he was reasonable and the SP was not about this specific issue or the reverse, at this point I don't think we can reasonably conclude.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

did you not see the video of him in the open air of windy old Utah with a group of people? 

That was a statement, not an interview.

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

did you not see the video of him in the open air of windy old Utah with a group of people? I think he's trying to score points against people and I ain't buying it

How long ago was this?  Deterioration could have occurred since then, evidence being he was/is undergoing surgery.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, ALarson said:

That was a statement, not an interview.

 

okay, I see the difference........................................................ and his interpreter was where? and the guy asking a question at the end was and him hearing and answering was?

Share this post


Link to post

Never mind, I see you mean yesterday.

 

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Wow.  Not cool.  You need to stop this.  There are enough issues to be unhappy with Rummells 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?

.

I have some minor hearing loss, and I can have individual conversations, but it's useless to try to talk to anyone at a party. I can only imagine how that would be compounded by serious hearing loss. 

Share this post


Link to post
59 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

It is still a one-on-one interview, in a friendly venue. And, (if I understand correctly), Jeremy's cochlear implants have failed due to nerve death over the past seceral months.

I walk with a cane or a staff.

Sometimes.

Not ALWAYS.

Some days I get on fine without it. If I need one, I should be allowed the discretion of using it.

You might want to rethink the insensitivity of what you're saying. I allowed for the possibility (likelihood, actually) that Jeremy Runnell's hand-chosen ASL interpreter was probably not just a 'Terp but a partisan advocate. 

But many, if not most LDS Stakes have volunteer ASL interpreters these days. Trusted people, many of them legally-certified ASL Interpreters, who understand their only role would be to interpret the proceedings. 

Since Runnells requested such help and was known to his SP to be handicapped, making this reasonable accommodation, though not legally required, would have been a commendable good will gesture.

Edited by flameburns623

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Calm said:

How long ago was this?  Deterioration could have occurred since then, evidence being he was/is undergoing surgery.

it was yestarday after his council. I have no problem at all with him having hearing issues but it seems to me he is using it to score points against the SP and I think it's wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, flameburns623 said:

It is still a one-on-one interview, in a friendly venue. And, (if I understand coreectly), Jeremy's cochlear implants have failed due to nerve death over the past seceral months.

I walk with a cane or a staff.

Sometimes.

Not ALWAYS.

Some days I get on fine without it. If I need one, I should be allowed the discretion of using it.

You might want to rethink the insensitivity of what you're saying. I allowed for the possibility (likelihood, actually) that Jeremy Runnell's hand-chosen ASL interpreter was probably not just a 'Terp but a partisan advocate. 

But many, if not most LDS Stakes have volunteer ASL interpreters these days. Trusted people, many of them legally-certified ASL Interpreters, who understand their role would be to interpret the proceedings. 

Since Runnells requested such help and was known to his SP to be handicapped, making this reasonable accommodation, though not legally required, would have been a commendable good will gesture.

and that's fine but in his open air thing yestarday what was going on? 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

okay, I see the difference........................................................ and his interpreter was where? and the guy asking a question at the end was and him hearing and answering was?

Ok, this must mean he's lying about his hearing issues.  Is he also having unnecessary surgery today too?

Numerous people have posted here with personal experience regarding hearing loss and have stated that a group situation is very difficult for them.  A court is a group situation.  If you don't get that, then continue on criticizing someone who is hearing impaired, but it simply is not cool to do.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Duncan said:

and that's fine but in his open air thing yestarday what was going on? 

Again, he was making a statement here.   If you can't see the difference between that and him trying to hear everything in a room where there is a group of people, then ok.  Again, go ahead and continue on with this line of attack....

.

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, ALarson said:

Ok, this must mean he's lying about his hearing issues.  Is he also having unnecessary surgery today too?

Numerous people have posted here with personal experience regarding hearing loss and have stated that a group situation is very difficult for them.  A court is a group situation.  If you don't get that, then continue on criticizing someone who is hearing impaired, but it simply is not cool to do.  

 

Seems awfully convenient on his part and he's exploiting it and I think it's wrong to do that? do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, ALarson said:

Again, he was making a statement here.   If you can't see the difference between that and him trying to hear everything in a room where there is a group of people, then ok.  Again, go ahead and continue on with this line of attack....

.

someone asked him a question at the end , he heard and responded. Now he's saying he was denied ASL interepretation because he can't hear? please

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Seems awfully convenient on his part and he's exploiting it and I think it's wrong to do that? do you?

Good grief :rolleyes:

Runnells has hearing issues.  He's going in for surgery today regarding these problems.  His court was held yesterday.  He had asked for an interpreter (group situation).  Why do you have a problem with that?

There are so many other aspects of this that I do have a problem with, that I think it's odd you're attacking him on this!  

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post

Duncan, I have my doubts about the man because I think he is intentionally misrepresenting the context of the genesis of the letter, but I can also see him wanting an interpreter just in case.  In the hearing, if his plan to discuss problems with the Church had been successful (I think that is out of place in a court btw), more complicated discussion might have occurred; perhaps he was expecting it to get heated with the chance of multiple peope talking...or perhaps he thought that the presence of an interpreter would cause people toslow down their speech, etc. and just make it easier to hear.  

As far as the interview, he might not have felt an interpreter was needed because he could ask a reporter to repeat the question, something that would have been annoying if he had to do it multiple times in the hearing.

His difficulty might be borderline and the desire for an interpreter just a precaution (has he complained about not being able to understand during the hearing?) and imo those with disabilities should be allowed reasonable accommodation even if is not necessary, but just easier.

So I don't see the request in and of itself as inappropriate, though he may have handled it inappropriately as per my post above.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, ALarson said:

Good grief :rolleyes:

Rummells has hearing issues.  He's going in for surgery today regarding these problems.  His court was held yesterday.  He had asked for an interpreter (group situation).  Why do you have a problem with that?

There are so many other aspects of this that I do have a problem with, that I think it's odd you're attacking him on this!  

because in another group situation afterwards he seemed fine?! I don't care for the situation either and maybe the SP is jerk who knows but I don't see RUNNELLS being such a victim here as he is portraying himself to be!

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Calm said:

Stem, we have his own conversations (they were still in a public forum when I posted the quotes here) from the time he was compiling the letter.  I am not questioning the sincerity of his doubt crisis or that it might have taken time.  What I am questioning the sincerity of is his leaving out the reason he originally stated for the letter as well as the fact he stated at that time he no longer believed.  We are not seeing stuff all after the fact of when it happened, but material from when it was happening.

Well, congrats Calm, you just made me go and look at the letter as found online now.  I don't know what you mean about the explanation of what sincerity you are questioning from him.  That sentence doesn't make sense to me. 

In the letter he states, " Obviously I’m a disaffected member who lost his testimony so it’s no secret which side I’m on at the moment.  All this information is a result of over a year of intense research and an absolute rabid obsession with Joseph Smith and Church history.  With this said, I’d be pretty arrogant and ignorant to say that I have all the information and that you don’t have answers.  Like you, I put my pants on one leg at a time and I see through a glass darkly.  You may have new information and/or a new perspective that I may not have heard or considered before.  This is why I’m genuinely interested in what your answers and thoughts are to these troubling problems. "

Why exactly do you question his sincerity?  He states he essentially no longer believes and is writing the letter because his grandpa originally reached out to this director hoping his grandson will find answers.   

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

because in another group situation afterwards he seemed fine?! 

Which other group situation?  Was it comparable to a church court setting?

.

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Why exactly do you question his sincerity?  He states he essentially no longer believes and is writing the letter because his grandpa originally reached out to this director hoping his grandson will find answers.   

I am referring to what he said in the reddit conversations, not the letter itself.

And imo, he does not make it clear now in the current interviews, etc. that when he wrote the CES letter, he was doing it from a place of disbelief as well outsourced much of the collecting so it just wasn't a personal exploration, etc.  I think the actual context makes a difference in how he and his material is perceived by others (once they understand the bias is different than they thought, they tend to look at details more closely for example in my experience) and I base this on comments I have read and heard.

I have provided quotes in the past, you can do a search on my posts with "Runnells" as a search term to easily find them. :)

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, Duncan said:

and that's fine but in his open air thing yestarday what was going on? 

Couple of things: most HoH (Hard-of-Hearing) and Deaf read lips very well in one-on-one exchanges. But that requires intense concentration on one speaker..

Second: if Jeremy were using a 'Terp, that person would have been in Jeremy's field of vision, usually somewhere behind the Hearing speakers, and not necessarily in the scope of the camera field.

A fluent user of ASL can communicate across a football field. There is no "whispering in a corner" in ASL' short of hiding behind a curtain or leaving the room. 

Could I suggest to you, respectfully, that you read up just a little on Deaf culture and the special challenges faced by Deaf and Hard of Hearing? It is very distinct from Hearing culture.

The following site is run by a Mormon guy. You don't have to try to learn ASL (I did try, and believe me, it is tough going); but Dr. Bill includes some accompanying articles:

http://www.lifeprint.com

Edited by flameburns623

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am referring to what he said in the reddit conversations, not the letter itself.

And imo, he does not make it clear now in the current interviews, etc. that when he wrote the CES letter, he was doing it from a place of disbelief as well outsourced much of the collecting so it just wasn't a personal exploration, etc.  I think the actual context makes a difference in how he and his material is perceived by others (once they understand the bias is different than they thought, they tend to look at details more closely for example in my experience) and I base this on comments I have read and heard.

I have provided quotes in the past, you can do a search on my posts with "Runnells" as a search term to easily find them. :)

I'm still not sure what you mean.  If it's already documented, the whys and all that, then why must he repeat it for each audience for he to be sincere?  Ah well...I have the feeling it doesn't matter anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Which other group situation?  Was it comparable to a church court setting?

.

his interview/statement afterwards, in the open air, windy parking lot.

 

By the way on page three of his paper he quotes Pres. Clark as saying  “If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.”

now his supporters are telling me that I am not allowed to question him? the hypocrisy 

Edited by Duncan

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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

I agree.  From my understanding, Jeremy's cochlear transplant was fairly recent (before his first interviews with Dehlin) they worked for awhile but maybe they didn't take.  As someone who cannot hear, I am not a good candidate for this type of transplant so I understand how important it would be for someone to be there and make sure everything is understood.  Quite frankly, it is kind of scary to have to strain or ask to repeat.  I wish him well.  I can't imagine why they did not at least afford him this courtesy.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...