Jeremy Runnells Excommunicated

[smac97]

On 4/19/2016 at 0:25 PM, 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?

From the CHI (Handbook 1, sec. 6.10.4

Quote

The presiding officer conducts the disciplinary council as follows:
...
3. If the member admits to the misconduct, proceed to number 5 below. If he denies the reported misconduct, present evidence of it or ask someone else to do so. This evidence may include the written or oral statements of witnesses, ... The member must be given an opportunity to question any witnesses who give evidence against him.

4. 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. Witnesses wait in a separate room until they give their evidence. The presiding officer asks them not to talk with each other about the matter either before or after they testify.

5. Ask questions of the member or witnesses in an orderly, polite manner, avoiding argument. Allow counselors in the bishopric or stake presidency to do the same. Questions are to be brief and limited to the essential facts of the case.

I am not sure how privilege comes into play in a disciplinary proceeding.  But clearly witnesses are allowed to attend under the above auspices.

I am not persuaded that Mr. Runnels had any witness testimony to present which fit into the above parameters.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

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? 

No, I'm talking about the accusations that there could be no valid reason to deny the request and more so, that not allowing the interpreter proves the SP was holding a "kangaroo court" which was inherently unjust and made it impossible for Runnel to defend himself.

[churchistrue]

I wonder how the court went.  Were the members of the council respectful of Jeremy's disability and careful about communicating in a way he understood or did they bully him like he was worried?  Has Jeremy mentioned anything about this? 

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, ttribe said:

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.

There is evidence which supports that Runnel might not have been as impaired without the interpreter as he is claiming, which also looks bad. 

Why is that "besides the point" when the other evidence to the contrary isn't?

Why is it the morally superior to weigh the evidence in favor of Runnel more heavily than the evidence against him?

 

[Tacenda]

Like someone mentioned already, maybe this public CES letter would not have occurred if someone from the church answered Jeremy's questions.  Fairmormon doesn't count, since the church won't endorse them in writing. 

[salgare]

wow, the high road would be for the Church to drop these draconian punishments.  What in the world did he do that would possibly warrant the punishments executed upon him, his wife and his children?

This last year I wrote an essay for my children, the following is extracted from that showing the choices (per the Church) I left my wife/children and my consequences for my apostasy from the Church

Wife's choices:

1. Stay with me in hope that I will repent and we still make the 7th heaven.
2. Divorce me and find another worthy priesthood holder that will get her to the 7th heaven.
3. Stay with me for mortality and become another man’s wife after death
a. If only wife, 3rd or 4th heaven based on the man’s worthiness
b. If plural wife, 5th to 7th heaven based on who will take her.
4. Stay with me for mortality and decide to not become another man’s wife
a. Relegated to 3rd heaven (servants to the higher heavens).

Children's situation (items 1:1 from above list)
1. We are all together as a family in the 7th heaven
2. You become sealed to the other man and are all together as a family in the 7th heaven
3. You become sealed to the other man and are all together as a family
a. In 3rd or 4th heaven just your mom.
b. In 5th to 7th heaven lots of mothers
4. You will be with your mother, not as a family but co-servants to those in higher heavens.

My consequences:

1. Separated for eternity from his mortal wife whom he loves
2. Separated for eternity from his children whom he loves.
3. Separated for eternity from his grandchildren whom he loves.
4. Resurrected but stripped of his reproductive organs.
5. Stripped of normal human sexual desires and left with the other sexless masses of the Terrestrial Kingdom

Not only is the threat of lost prosperity and family in this life, but throughout eternity is at stake. Surely my weakness and apostasy merits this.

Surely Jeremy's crisis of faith also merited it right?

And you guys are arguing of a stupid interpreter being the high road.

Gotta love a fear driven Church.  I can think of nothing more fearful that the above threat.

 

 

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

There is evidence which supports that Runnel might not have been as impaired without the interpreter as he is claiming, which also looks bad. 

Why is that "besides the point" when the other evidence to the contrary isn't?

Why is it the morally superior to weigh the evidence in favor of Runnel more heavily than the evidence against him?

 

It's a documented fact that he has a hearing impairment.  The default, under any circumstance (be it court, church, school, etc.) is that an interpreter is a reasonable accommodation and such a request should be honored (indeed, the CHI indicates as much). There's no need for a judgment on moral superiority; it's pretty simple.

[JulieM]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

There is evidence which supports that Runnel might not have been as impaired without the interpreter as he is claiming, which also looks bad.

Where is that evidence?  He went in for surgery the day after his court because of more hearing problems, didn't he?

 

[bluebell]

Just now, ttribe said:

It's a documented fact that he has a hearing impairment.  The default, under any circumstance (be it court, church, school, etc.) is that an interpreter is a reasonable accommodation and such a request should be honored (indeed, the CHI indicates as much). There's no need for a judgment on moral superiority; it's pretty simple.

Without knowing what transpired and why, there are a lot of assumptions in your post that I'm not comfortable making.

Also, it's a documented fact that Runnel has been in situations that would typically aggravate hearing loss where he didn't struggle to hear, or at the very least, where he did not use an interpreter and doesn't appear to be hindered by that.

Maybe his hearing is worse now, or something else equally valid. I'm not saying he is absolutely using his disability to score points. But I'm also not going to ignore that evidence (and other evidence which shows that Runnel is not always the most trustworthy guy when it comes to his dealings with the church) just because he has a disability.

[Tacenda]

15 minutes ago, ttribe said:

It's a documented fact that he has a hearing impairment.  The default, under any circumstance (be it court, church, school, etc.) is that an interpreter is a reasonable accommodation and such a request should be honored (indeed, the CHI indicates as much). There's no need for a judgment on moral superiority; it's pretty simple.

His surgery took place today, I wonder how he faired in getting some hearing loss back.  I'm sure the docs or his insurance company wouldn't appreciate him lying about his being legally deaf.  ETA:  Yesterday I mean.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Tacenda

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Where is that evidence?  He went in for surgery the day after his court because of more hearing problems, didn't he?

 

Other press conferences and gatherings where he chose not to use one, such as the press conference (held in the wind) the night of his DC.

I'm not saying the evidence is proof that he's using his disability to serve his agenda against the church.  I'm just saying that it exists and it's not immoral to take it into consideration when judging the merits of his accusations against his SP.

 

Edited April 19, 2016 by bluebell

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Without knowing what transpired and why, there are a lot of assumptions in your post that I'm not comfortable making.

Also, it's a documented fact that Runnel has been in situations that would typically aggravate hearing loss where he didn't struggle to hear, or at the very least, where he did not use an interpreter and doesn't appear to be hindered by that.

Maybe his hearing is worse now, or something else equally valid. I'm not saying he is absolutely using his disability to score points. But I'm also not going to ignore that evidence (and other evidence which shows that Runnel is not always the most trustworthy guy when it comes to his dealings with the church) just because he has a disability.

What am I assuming?  That he's deaf?  Well, I think the evidence is pretty convincing in that case.  What else, that it was severe enough to warrant an interpreter?  Well, there's only one person qualified to make that judgment, and that's the person making the request.

What other assumptions am I making?

[Gray]

28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No, I'm talking about the accusations that there could be no valid reason to deny the request and more so, that not allowing the interpreter proves the SP was holding a "kangaroo court" which was inherently unjust and made it impossible for Runnel to defend himself.

There IS no valid or defensible reason to deny the request. Regarding the kangaroo court thing, that's an entirely separate issue. 

It's not too late to let go of the tar baby. The rabbit's already been thrown into the briar patch. 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

What am I assuming?  That he's deaf?  Well, I think the evidence is pretty convincing in that case.  What else, that it was severe enough to warrant an interpreter?  Well, there's only one person qualified to make that judgment, and that's the person making the request.

What other assumptions am I making?

You're assuming that the SP had no valid reason not to allow Runnel's interpreter into the meeting, or whether other accommodations were offered. 

That was what I was referring to.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

There IS no valid or defensible reason to deny the request. Regarding the kangaroo court thing, that's an entirely separate issue. 

It's not too late to let go of the tar baby. The rabbit's already been thrown into the briar patch. 

Yes, we've established your beliefs about it.  

But since your opinion is not the stick we use to measure whether or not something is acceptable, that declaration doesn't change my thoughts about it.

 

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

You're assuming that the SP had no valid reason not to allow Runnel's interpreter into the meeting, or whether other accommodations were offered. 

That was what I was referring to.

Well, help me out, what possible valid reason could there be for denying the presence of an interpreter?

The only accommodation I'm aware of is an offer to allow Runnells to submit some things in writing.  That still doesn't help the participant "hear" what's going on in the course of the meeting.

Since I'm not credible, apparently, I refer you to the following posts on this issue:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67444-jeremy-runnells-excommunicated/?do=findComment&comment=1209615838

 

[Calm]

23 hours ago, USU78 said:

 

Runnells asked for a continuance till 25 Mar 2016 for personal reasons.

The SP informed Runnells that his disciplinary council would be held on 14 Feb 2016.

Runnells held a press conference on 10 Feb 2016:  asks supporters to protest the 14 Feb 2016 council.

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

The SP rescheduled the disciplinary council for 20 Mar 2016.

Runnells obtained a second postponement for the 20 Mar 2016 disciplinary council...

According to Runnells, when first told of the Feb 14 date, he asked for a delay due to family issues and was granted it for sometime in March iirc. Then the SP contacted him and said it would go as scheduled based on "additional information" received.  

After the Feb 10 press conference, the SP contacted him and said the council would be delayed.

Then that was cancelled by the SP, as far as I remember there was no request by Runnells to delay it.  

So everyone was a noshow at the original council because the SP cancelled it.

Same with the second scheduling.

This is from the ces letter site.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

stemelbow is unaware of the possibility, actually made reality in our litigious US, that the penitent apparently waived the privilege, the priest, in reliance on that apparent waiver, spoke publicly about the otherwise privileged disciplinary communication, and the penitent sued  ...  and recovered judgment against the priest.

Yes, this is a big deal.  Nobody should assume that even a knowing waiver is effective to protect the priest from liability for violating the seal of the confessional.

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, we've established your beliefs about it.  

But since your opinion is not the stick we use to measure whether or not something is acceptable, that declaration doesn't change my thoughts about it.

 

Then you'll continue to play into the hands of people who wish the church harm. Sometimes we are our own worst enemies. 

[juliann]

2 hours 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 don't see it a matter of disagreeing with the SP, only a matter of showing common decency when speaking of the Deaf/Hard of Hearing. We don't know what happened or why....but what is happening now is that far too many privileged hearing people are making extremely ungracious remarks about what that community needs or should get.  All that does is make Mormons look condescendingly mean and uncaring. Heaven forbid we should end up with any deaf refugees.

 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Well, help me out, what possible valid reason could there be for denying the presence of an interpreter?

The only accommodation I'm aware of is an offer to allow Runnells to submit some things in writing.  That still doesn't help the participant "hear" what's going on in the course of the meeting.

Since I'm not credible, apparently, I refer you to the following posts on this issue:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67444-jeremy-runnells-excommunicated/?do=findComment&comment=1209615838

 

I find Juliann very credible, but just like the rest of us, she wasn't a part of the SP's and Runnel's relationship, nor privileged to know what exactly transpired on the topic. Without the SP explaining his reasoning we just can't know why Runnel's interpreter wasn't allowed in.  Trying to guess why is a useless activity.

Maybe it was a bad decision, but from my perspective there is too much unknown to declare that as a fact.

 

[USU78]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

According to Runnells, when first told of the Feb 14 date, he asked for a delay due to family issues and was granted it for sometime in March iirc. Then the SP contacted him and said it would go as scheduled based on "additional information" received.  

After the Feb 10 press conference, the SP contacted him and said the council would be delayed.

Then that was cancelled by the SP, as far as I remember there was no request by Runnells to delay it.  

So everyone was a noshow at the original council because the SP cancelled it.

Same with the second scheduling.

This is from the ces letter site.

Yes.  You looked at the same information I did.  He was a no-show for personal reasons at the scheduled 14 Feb council.  He had "pressed up" in response to the prior refusal to postpone it.  Then the SP decided that finding a date and actually getting him there, if possible, was apparently preferable to the alternative.

This is, of course, if we are to credit Runnells with listing everything that is relevant to the question of how many postponements and his reasons for demanding them.m

This also, quite interestingly, leaves out any mention of any claim at any time prior to 14 Apr-ish to need an asl interpreter or whether he is even sufficiently fluent therein to justify having one participate  ...  especially, perhaps, given the "additional information" the SP had received.

Thanks for looking at this again.

[juliann]

42 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Like someone mentioned already, maybe this public CES letter would not have occurred if someone from the church answered Jeremy's questions.  Fairmormon doesn't count, since the church won't endorse them in writing. 

Oh for heaven's sake. There are so many answers to his "questions" that it is pathetic. The Church is under no obligation to answer pages of anything anytime somebody hollers.  His "questions" are accusations which is why answers aren't convenient and will never be accepted from any source. If he cared about answers he would be spending his time helping others find sources and books so that they could understand and contextualize. But that would require a lot more work than spitting out sound bites and memes. It is easier to continue to fine tune accusations instead.

[Calm]

I believe someone stated he requested an interpreter for one of the press conferences.

[USU78]

45 minutes ago, salgare said:

wow, the high road would be for the Church to drop these draconian punishments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draconian_constitution

 

 

Quote

 

And Draco himself, they say, being asked why he made death the penalty for most offences, replied that in his opinion the lesser ones deserved it, and for the greater ones no heavier penalty could be found.

— Plutarch, Life of Solon

 

So  ...  you're equating the typical draconian death penalty for petty theft with excommunication?

 

Bit of a stretch, in my opinion.