Jeremy Runnells Excommunicated

[sjdawg]

53 minutes ago, cdowis said:

For the same reason spectators are not allowed during a temple recommend interview.  It is not a trial, but an interview to speak to the facts and  a final attempt to give counsel to the individual which should be done in private.

 

seems a little intimidating especially at a Stake Level when there are 15 other people there from the LDS Church (I know they draw lots to see which members of high council will support the accuses) and 1 accused.   If the accused wishes to waive his right to privacy in exchange for having some support it certainly seems reasonable.  

I was just curious.  I don't plan to get involved in a council regardless of who is allowed/not allowed to attend.

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

For the same reason spectators are not allowed during a temple recommend interview.  It is not a trial, but an interview to speak to the facts and  a final attempt to give counsel to the individual which should be done in private.

 

It's a church court or disciplinary counsel, not a one to one personal interview.

And, I thought they could bring witnesses if they wanted to?  

[ALarson]

15 hours ago, USU78 said:

If you excuse somebody's bad behavior or insist that considerations be given because of an accident of nature such that the somebody is not held to the same ethical and moral standards of behavior as everybody else, you make that person less than human:  you make that person a pet.

So, you choose to refer to Runnell's hearing loss as an "accident of nature" and believe that him asking for an interpreter somehow reflects on his "ethical and moral standards" which result in making him a "pet"?

 

 

 

[salgare]

13 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Call for references, please.

I never heard of a "Givens movement" or anything like it. And when I pointed that out to you, you intentionally misrepresented me as saying there was a "Givens underground" or something. So I'm not inclined to trust your unsupported claims of what your opponents are saying.

 

I'm still awaiting your outstanding CFR from the exact same thread where Mark acknowledged it.  "A different God"

Awaiting your CFR, I will not be responding to any you issue until I've gotten the reference, retracted or admin calls it.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

It's a church court or disciplinary counsel, not a one to one personal interview.

And, I thought they could bring witnesses if they wanted to?  

Did Runnells bring a witness to his precouncil activities, or was the alleged asl interpreter intended as a witness to the proceedings? 

[USU78]

17 minutes ago, ALarson said:

So, you choose to refer to Runnell's hearing loss as an "accident of nature" and believe that him asking for an interpreter somehow reflects on his "ethical and moral standards" which result in making him a "pet"?

No, I am saying, and I would have thought it clear, that Runnells' supporters who support him and excuse his perfidy and manipulations and are getting all teary-eyed are losing all capacity to reason because they've made him their pet, and pets, as we all know, can do no wrong because they're, you know, pets

[salgare]

What if the CES director was able to have given him official Church answers or turned him over to an official representative of the Church whom could address his concerns.

Would things have turned out differently.

Why is there not official resources even to this day to help the hundreds (thousands) of members that are struggling at this time?

[flameburns623]

19 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Did Runnells bring a witness to his precouncil activities, or was the alleged asl interpreter intended as a witness to the proceedings? 

I believe Runnells brought someone beside his 'Terp but lemme check on that.

[consiglieri]

16 hours ago, USU78 said:

Unworthy of you, Jeanne.

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

It's a church court or disciplinary counsel, not a one to one personal interview.

And, I thought they could bring witnesses if they wanted to?  

 "If the member desires to present evidence in his behalf, invite him to bring in witnesses one at a time, submit other relevant evidence, comment on the evidence, and make any other statements he desires.
Witnesses should be Church members unless the presiding officer has determined in advance that a nonmember witness will respect the purposes and procedures of a Church disciplinary council." CHI

In this type of case I'm not sure what kind of witness he could use. 

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, sjdawg said:

seems a little intimidating especially at a Stake Level when there are 15 other people there from the LDS Church (I know they draw lots to see which members of high council will support the accuses) and 1 accused.  

You are assuming that the bishop has not spoken to him personally to give him an opportunity to AVOID this trial.   And, as you point out, the accused has his defenders, so he does not stand alone.

If the accused wishes to waive his right to privacy in exchange for having some support it certainly seems reasonable.  

Having spectators ("supporters") could be disruptive to the proceedings.  Any visitor is not bound to behave themselves, and if they are disruptive, who will take them out of the room -- do we need the church security in the room to keep order?

Considering the inclination of some of these supporters, it would end up being a circus.

 

Edited April 19, 2016 by cdowis

[JAHS]

19 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

40 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Did Runnells bring a witness to his precouncil activities, or was the alleged asl interpreter intended as a witness to the proceedings? 

I believe Runnells brought someone beside his 'Terp but lemme check on that.

Wasn't his intention for attending to just submit his resignation? If so he didn't need to bring any witnesses.

[JulieM]

58 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Did Runnells bring a witness to his precouncil activities, or was the alleged asl interpreter intended as a witness to the proceedings? 

What exactly are "precounsel activities"?  Just all interviews leading up to the actual church court or something more specific?

[stemelbow]

17 hours ago, USU78 said:

Media whores are rarely truly victims.

Why do you care if he is truly one of the rare birds?  How's that skin off your nose?

I don't think this spirit of hostility has a place in the kingdom of God, or at least I hope not. 

Your level of anger makes me sad. 

[Avatar4321]

I hope one day he comes to himself

[rongo]

[From several pages back, in reference to me asking what had happened with the family member in hospice]

 

Quote

 

Wow..I thought Rongo was kidding and making a joke..is this real???

 

 

 

Quote

It's this kind of nonsense that results in LDS apologists earning labels as heartless attack-dogs.

It's interesting to me to see the above knee-jerk reaction to my question. I said nothing about the implications of this; I was merely asking since that data point seems to have dropped off the planet.

I have a reason for asking. I'm noticing a pattern of frivolous stall tactics in high-profile, media-invoked disciplinary councils (Kelly, Snuffer, Runnels, etc.). The stall tactics aren't represented as frivolous; to the contrary, anyone questioning them is demonized as heartless and callous. That's part of the intent --- to inject "atrocity tale" elements to the "narrative."

I have a lot of experience with disciplinary councils, and we had a member pass away a month ago who had been in hospice care until his passing. His wife is on a feeding tube, and both of their care was very labor-intensive. The ward was heavily-involved in this, and one challenge was getting the children and grandchildren (who live within an hour) to assume the family's proper role in caring for their parents/grandparents (the family wanted and expected the ward to do most of this, and we did a lot, especially in emergencies). So, I am sympathetic to the unique needs a family member caring for someone in hospice would have. I also see through his claim that he couldn't possibly attend a disciplinary council because he needed to be there 24-7. If nothing else, I'm sure his priesthood leaders would have been happy to have made arrangements so that he could attend his council (substitutes to be with the family member in his absence, etc.). 

All talk about the difficulties the hospice care presented immediately ceased once the council was postponed for a month. I am just genuinely curious as to whether the family member passed away, or what. 

I have never experienced cross-talk in a disciplinary council. One person, and one person only, is ever talking at a time, in my experience, so I find the defenses advanced here that a "large group setting" such as a stake DC would have been too onerous and hard for Runnels to follow to be spurious. I think the "interpreter issue" is just another checklist item on the "atrocity/oppression" checklist. 

The kicker for me is that he brought a resignation letter to the council. He never intended to go through with the council process, and he was getting his ducks in a row for PR/publicity value beforehand. All of the "look what they did to me!" factors, the stall and delay tactics were moot ---- the interpreter didn't matter, the delayed date didn't matter, because he wasn't going to go through the DC process anyway.

 

 

Edited April 19, 2016 by rongo

[ALarson]

18 hours ago, USU78 said:

Runnells was a no-show for the initial disciplinary council on 14 Feb 2016.

Is this correct?  There was another disciplinary council held that Runnells did not show up for?

[Gray]

There was only high road to take, and that was to provide an interpreter, and not make this all about his disability. Unfortunately the high road was not taken, and continues not to be taken by many in this thread. Even assuming the worst about Runnells, the only high road possible is to assume he needed the interpreter and let it go. Anything else is shooting yourself in the foot. 

[smac97]

On 4/19/2016 at 5:31 AM, JulieM said:

It's a church court or disciplinary counsel, not a one to one personal interview.

And, I thought they could bring witnesses if they wanted to?  

You could bring witnesses if they have competent, relevant, probative evidence regarding the issues being addressed at the council.  Otherwise, no.

Thanks,

-Smac

[salgare]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Is this correct?  There was another disciplinary council held that Runnells did not show up for?

That statement surprised me as well, I have not heard that before.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, salgare said:

That statement surprised me as well, I have not heard that before.

Well, USU78 got other things wrong on that timeline, so that's why I was asking.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

There was only high road to take, and that was to provide an interpreter, and not make this all about his disability. Unfortunately the high road was not taken, and continues not to be taken by many in this thread. Even assuming the worst about Runnells, the only high road possible is to assume he needed the interpreter and let it go. Anything else is shooting yourself in the foot. 

I agree. Disarming the "ammo" by granting a delay, providing an interpreter, etc. would have taken air out of his publicity balloon. Of course, I don't think it would have ended there. He probably would have then insisted on his own interpreter, or a certified public ASL interpreter (there is a difference between someone who interprets ASL for a living, and a person who speaks ASL). Or, the theatrics would have shifted to insisting that the DC answer all of his CES letter stuff to his satisfaction. Or something else. But, by granting reasonable requests, it disarms the "reasonable" requests, and makes him look more insincere with more "unreasonable" ones. Since this isn't what happened, he got some publicity mileage out of it.

What is Runnels' fluency or familiarity with ASL? I ask, because he wasn't born deaf, and his advanced hearing loss appears to have been relatively recent. Is there any way of knowing the extent of Runnels' fluency in ASL (i.e., was an interpreter a reasonable request from that perspective)?

Edited April 19, 2016 by rongo

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

[ttribe]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

I agree. Disarming the "ammo" by granting a delay, providing an interpreter, etc. would have taken air out of his publicity balloon. Of course, I don't think it would have ended there. He probably would have then insisted on his own interpreter, or a certified public ASL interpreter (there is a difference between someone who interprets ASL for a living, and a person who speaks ASL). Or, the theatrics would have shifted to insisting that the DC answer all of his CES letter stuff to his satisfaction. Or something else. But, by granting reasonable requests, it disarms the "reasonable" requests, and makes him look more insincere with more "unreasonable" ones. Since this isn't what happened, he got some publicity mileage out of it.

What is Runnels' fluency or familiarity with ASL? I ask, because he wasn't born deaf, and his advanced hearing loss appears to have been relatively recent. Is there any way of knowing the extent of Runnels' fluency in ASL (i.e., was an interpreter a reasonable request from that perspective)?

Don't know, but there are different kinds of interpreters for the Deaf and HoH; ASL isn't the only one.  I think it's safe to assume that he was requesting the presence of an interpreter who would meet his needs.

Edited April 19, 2016 by ttribe

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

What is Runnels' fluency or familiarity with ASL? I ask, because he wasn't born deaf, and his advanced hearing loss appears to have been relatively recent. Is there any way of knowing the extent of Runnels' fluency in ASL (i.e., was an interpreter a reasonable request from that perspective)?

IIRC, someone posted that they thought Runnells was fluent in ASL.

.

Edited April 19, 2016 by ALarson