Jeremy Runnells Excommunicated

[rongo]

17 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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

.

That would be amazing, since his hearing hasn't dramatically deteriorated until recently. Like with any language, it's easier to learn it when you're young, and harder when you're older. One would only learn fluency by immersion, and his cochlear implants (and public life as an apostate celebrity) show attempts to interact with the hearing world as much as possible (and who can blame him for that?). 

ASL (or other pidgin or hybrid forms) is h-a-r-d. I would be very surprised to learn that he could follow a professional interpreter in real-time.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

That would be amazing, since his hearing hasn't dramatically deteriorated until recently. Like with any language, it's easier to learn it when you're young, and harder when you're older. One would only learn fluency by immersion, and his cochlear implants (and public life as an apostate celebrity) show attempts to interact with the hearing world as much as possible (and who can blame him for that?). 

ASL (or other pidgin or hybrid forms) is h-a-r-d. I would be very surprised to learn that he could follow a professional interpreter in real-time.

Wow, lots of assumptions and unknowns there.  Maybe someone who's more familiar with Runnells can comment regarding his fluency or ability to follow an interpreter.

(I love your term "apostate celebrity"! ) 

.

Edited April 19, 2016 by ALarson

[cdowis]

15 minutes ago, rongo said:

That would be amazing, since his hearing hasn't dramatically deteriorated until recently. Like with any language, it's easier to learn it when you're young, and harder when you're older. One would only learn fluency by immersion, and his cochlear implants (and public life as an apostate celebrity) show attempts to interact with the hearing world as much as possible (and who can blame him for that?). 

ASL (or other pidgin or hybrid forms) is h-a-r-d. I would be very surprised to learn that he could follow a professional interpreter in real-time.

Typing on a computer screen seems to be a reasonable accommodation.  He has alot of experience in reading.  

Edited April 19, 2016 by cdowis

[bluebell]

2 hours 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 with you, and I don't at the same time. 

Taking the high road allows Runnel the benefit of the doubt and is merciful. But on the other hand, if throwing the stake president under the bus by agreeing with Runnel's accusations just because he made them is the requirement for taking the high road, that doesn't seem very fair.

Runnel has put forward this information and presented his stake president as being in the wrong and worthy of harsh judgment. Is it therefore wrong for people to take the evidence that they have and come to a different conclusion?  Is doing that (disagreeing with Runnel) "taking the low road"?

That doesn't seem reasonable.

Runnel has essentially put his stake president on trial for this offense. It doesn't sit well with me to claim that the stake president cannot righteously be defended, or that people cannot look at ALL the evidence available and come to their own conclusions unless those conclusions agree with the prosecution. 

It would be different if Runnel had not personally made the accusations of his stake president public, but having done so, it is reasonable that people do what Runnel wants them to do--judge the matter.

 

 

[Gray]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree with you, and I don't at the same time. 

Taking the high road allows Runnel the benefit of the doubt and is merciful. But on the other hand, if throwing the stake president under the bus by agreeing with Runnel's accusations just because he made them is the requirement for taking the high road, that doesn't seem very fair.

Runnel has put forward this information and presented his stake president as being in the wrong and worthy of harsh judgment. Is it therefore wrong for people to take the evidence that they have and come to a different conclusion?  Is doing that (disagreeing with Runnel) "taking the low road"?

That doesn't seem reasonable.

Runnel has essentially put his stake president on trial for this offense. It doesn't sit well with me to claim that the stake president cannot righteously be defended, or that people cannot look at ALL the evidence available and come to their own conclusions unless those conclusions agree with the prosecution. 

It would be different if Runnel had not personally made the accusations of his stake president public, but having done so, it is reasonable that people do what Runnel wants them to do--judge the matter.

 

 

There isn't really a good way to defend the stake president on this. Any attempt to do that - usually by questioning "just how deaf is he, anyway?" comes off as insensitive and offensive to deaf people. You can't even defend the SP on procedure - apparently he went against the handbook too. This was a minor PR black eye for the church, and it didn't have to be. Trying to justify it just makes it worse. That is true even if Runnells secretly has perfect hearing, and has been faking the whole time (unlikely). It's like beating a defendant on the way to court. Even if he was guilty as sin, you just hurt your case against him. 

So yes, taking the high road on this means not questioning just how deaf is he anyway, and it means they should have accommodated his disability. It's a small victory for those who wish to see the church's reputation hurt. Not saying this is the issue of the century, but it does look bad. 

Edited April 19, 2016 by Gray

[ALarson]

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Taking the high road allows Runnel the benefit of the doubt and is merciful. But on the other hand, if throwing the stake president under the bus by agreeing with Runnel's accusations just because he made them is the requirement for taking the high road, that doesn't seem very fair.

There would have been no bus to throw the stake president under (which I agree is wrong to do) if an interpreter had been provided.  (I think that's what was meant by taking the high road =  the honoring of Runnell's request.)

(Of course, another bus might have come along, just not this one  )

Edited April 19, 2016 by ALarson

[Calm]

1 hour 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)?

He has had significant problems at leat since he was 14.

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

There isn't really a good way to defend the stake president on this. Any attempt to do that - usually by questioning "just how deaf is he, anyway?" comes off as insensitive and offensive to deaf people. You can't even defend the SP on procedure - apparently he went against the handbook too. This was a minor PR black eye for the church, and it didn't have to be. Trying to justify it just makes it worse. That is true even if Runnells secretly has perfect hearing, and has been faking the whole time (unlikely). It's like beating a defendant on the way to court. Even if he was guilty as sin, you just hurt your case against him. 

So yes, taking the high road on this means not questioning just how deaf is he anyway, and it means they should have accommodated his disability. It's a small victory for those who wish to see the church's reputation hurt. Not saying this is the issue of the century, but it does look bad. 

I just can't agree that believing everything that Runnel's says is the only way to take the high road.

 

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

There would have been no bus to throw the stake president under (which I agree is wrong to do) if an interpreter had been provided.  (I think that's what was meant by taking the high road =  the honoring of Runnell's request.)

(Of course, another bus might have come along, just not this one  )

I should have edited Gray's post so it wasn't confusing, but this is the part I was responding to-

"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. "

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I just can't agree that believing everything that Runnel's says is the only way to take the high road.

 

Who has said that?  (Maybe I missed it?)

I think that taking the high road was only in reference to agreeing to Runnell's request for an interpreter.  Not agreeing to believe "everything that Runnells says".

.

Edited April 19, 2016 by ALarson

[bluebell]

Just now, ALarson said:

Who has said that?  (Maybe I missed it?)

I think that taking the high road was only in reference to agreeing to Runnell's request for an interpreter.  Not believing "everything that Runnells says".

See my last post to you.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

See my last post to you.

Ok, thanks  

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I just can't agree that believing everything that Runnel's says is the only way to take the high road.

 

Ha! But seriously, when it comes to his medical condition, yes, it's absolutely the only way. 

 

Edited April 19, 2016 by Gray

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

Ha! But seriously, when it comes to his medical condition, yes, it's absolutely the only way. 

 

No, it's not.  Assuming the worst about someone because the person accusing them has a legitimate disability (and for no other reason) is not reasonable in my opinion.

 

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No, it's not.  Assuming the worst about someone because the person accusing them has a legitimate disability (and for no other reason) is not reasonable in my opinion.

 

I didn't say you had to assume the worst about the SP. But trying to defend his decision is a lose/lose. Looks bad for you, looks bad for the church. There is no winnable exit strategy from that trajectory. 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I agree with you, and I don't at the same time. 

Taking the high road allows Runnel the benefit of the doubt and is merciful. But on the other hand, if throwing the stake president under the bus by agreeing with Runnel's accusations just because he made them is the requirement for taking the high road, that doesn't seem very fair.

Runnel has put forward this information and presented his stake president as being in the wrong and worthy of harsh judgment. Is it therefore wrong for people to take the evidence that they have and come to a different conclusion?  Is doing that (disagreeing with Runnel) "taking the low road"?

That doesn't seem reasonable.

Runnel has essentially put his stake president on trial for this offense. It doesn't sit well with me to claim that the stake president cannot righteously be defended, or that people cannot look at ALL the evidence available and come to their own conclusions unless those conclusions agree with the prosecution. 

It would be different if Runnel had not personally made the accusations of his stake president public, but having done so, it is reasonable that people do what Runnel wants them to do--judge the matter.

 

 

I'm trying to imagine a scenario in which it reasonable an interpreter was not allowed.  I can't imagine anything other than if there was none available (which is silly).  There's possibly nothing wrong with Runnels reporting he was not allowed to have an interpreter.  It's what happened.  It's not an accusation by Runnel's.  It's what happened. 

[USU78]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

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

No I did not.  If you have problems, check his own timeline in his website, from which I took everything I put.  What I did not put in is the date upon which he requested the accommodation, which date was not listed on the timeline I looked at. 

You are making things up.

Knock it off.

[USU78]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac, just how would one comply with the priest/penitent confidentiality duty if 3rd parties like witnesses/translators/support animals are permitted during the proceedings?

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, Gray said:

I didn't say you had to assume the worst about the SP. But trying to defend his decision is a lose/lose. Looks bad for you, looks bad for the church. There is no winnable exit strategy from that trajectory. 

There is no way to believe Runnel without assuming the worst about the SP. 

He presents the SP in the worst light. 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

Smac, just how would one comply with the priest/penitent confidentiality duty if 3rd parties like witnesses/translators/support animals are permitted during the proceedings?

So you are imagining if the penitent invites someone, then that penitent is violating his own privacy?  I don't know, I figure we're each able to decide for ourselves who we tell and what we tell.  There's no reason to try and force people to not tell others what they want to tell others. 

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm trying to imagine a scenario in which it reasonable an interpreter was not allowed.  I can't imagine anything other than if there was none available (which is silly).  There's possibly nothing wrong with Runnels reporting he was not allowed to have an interpreter.  It's what happened.  It's not an accusation by Runnel's.  It's what happened. 

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that Runnel used "I wasn't allowed an interpreter" as evidence to support his Kangaroo Court accusation. 

I agree there isn't anything wrong with Runnel reporting what he did. What I find faulty is arguing that the only valid opinion to have, after having heard the report, is that Jeremy was right and the SP was in the wrong.

Once you invite the public into your business, you acknowledge that they might judge things differently than you do.  It's not morally wrong for people to publicly declare doubt or disagreement with a publicly made declaration.

Can they say it in a way that IS morally wrong, sure.  But simply disagreeing or doubting isn't taking the low road.

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

  It's not an accusation by Runnel's.  It's what happened. 

It has been turned into an accusation by him though (if he is the owner of the CES letter facebook site).

[Gray]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

There is no way to believe Runnel without assuming the worst about the SP. 

He presents the SP in the worst light. 

I didn't think that anyone was questioning whether the SP had really denied his request for an interpreter. Is that what you're suggesting? That Runnels never asked, or the SP actually did agree to provide one? 

If so, any evidence for that? 

Edited April 19, 2016 by Gray

[ttribe]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

There is no way to believe Runnel without assuming the worst about the SP. 

He presents the SP in the worst light. 

On the interpreter issue?  How do you figure?  Is it not possible to simply chalk it up to error or misunderstanding, and leave it at that?  Whether Runnells is doing so is beside the point; the fact is there was a denial of a request to accommodate a disability.  No matter how you slice it, that just looks bad.

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

No I did not.  If you have problems, check his own timeline in his website, from which I took everything I put.  What I did not put in is the date upon which he requested the accommodation, which date was not listed on the timeline I looked at. 

You already admitted to something else that was incorrect on your timeline (earlier in this thread).

Here's another statement from your timeline:

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

You have been questioned regarding your quote above and you have not responded.  

Was there another disciplinary council on February 14th that Runnells didn't show up for?

This is a CFR.

.

Edited April 19, 2016 by ALarson