Jeremy Runnells Excommunicated

[USU78]

50 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. 

Is the CES letter a list of questions or a list of theses nailed to a church door?

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

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

I don't believe anything I have said can reasonably paint the church in a bad light so I'm not concerned about that. I've tried very hard to be fair while sharing my thoughts on this topic.

But it's true that you don't necessarily have to say or do anything wrong for people to try to use it against the church.  It's Runnel's own example of that which causes me not to trust him as much as I probably otherwise would. 

[consiglieri]

45 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.

I agree with this.

The fact that such an accommodation was not provided suggests that the stake president did not consider the disciplinary council a serious matter.

At least not serious enough to ensure that Jeremy completely understood the proceedings.

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, juliann said:

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.

 

I definitely agree there is a way to address doubts about Runnel that causes more harm than good. 

 

[USU78]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

From the CHI (Handbook 1, sec. 6.10.4

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

I'm thinking, of course, of the non-waiving-waiver cases against the RCC, where the Church was found liable for breaking the seal of the confessional, notwithstanding it had appeared that the penitent had waived the privilege by speaking about the proceedings of the confession.

It appears to me that Runnells' admission is patent in his online and press-conference-esque publications of his views:  he has never denied having done it all.  The only thing that's left, seems to me, is to determine if the admitted-to activity/statements amount to apostasy.  And it's hard to imagine them not amounting to just that.

Under those circumstances, just what was left to be done?

[JulieM]

19 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Yes.  You looked at the same information I did.  He was a no-show for personal reasons at the scheduled 14 Feb council.  

You might want to change what you posted earlier then.  There was no initial disciplinary counsel on the 14th to show up to (so how could Jeremy have been a no show?).  It was postponed, so it's incorrect for you to say he was a no show (why would anyone be expected to show up for something that didn't exist on that day?).  You should at least re-word it to make it accurate and truthful.

You wrote this in your time line:

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

But, there was no "initial disciplinary council" on February 14th, was there? 

Edited April 19, 2016 by JulieM

[consiglieri]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

 

I think you know I like you, Bluebell, so please don't take this personally. 

Where we part company is on a very simple issue--In the complete absence of evidence as to what exactly happened to cause the stake president to deny an interpreter for Jeremy, you seem willing to do everything you can to come down on the stake president's side.

In other words, you seem to have prejudged the issue.

Even though the issue is clear--that Jeremy is legally deaf, requested an interpreter, and the stake president denied the request--you seem to want to plead ignorance of the exact specifics.

Pleading ignorance is not a bad thing as far as it goes.

But I find it problematic to plead that our ignorance somehow constitutes a defense of the stake president's decision.

Does that make any sense?

[Calm]

http://www.allreadable.com/f3f0FGG6

In the interview he states that he started having problems hearing around 3 years of age and it got progressively worse over time.

He was called on a mission to teach Deaf individuals ASL.

He apparently became fluent in it due to his mission, he was limited in his usage prior to that.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Calm

[Rain]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

 

That's what I have been thinking.  It's possible that there was a simple, sincere request that was just outright denied by the SP without him understanding the need for it or even deciding that he didn't want to approve of it for whatever reason.

But it's also possible they had one, but they couldn't make it at the last minute.  Or that a specific interpreter was asked for and that specific one denied.  Or that there was a miscommunication about Runnels asking for it.  Or about the SP denying it.  It's even possible that he posted he asked for one, but didn't - not saying I believe that.  There are any number of reasons that an interpreter may not have been there.    

So without hearing the SP's side of the story then I can't come down on the SP.  That doesn't mean I come down on Runnels either though.  It just means we don't have enough information to make a judgment call on this and we probably never will.   

 

Edited April 19, 2016 by Rain

[USU78]

21 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I seek the good in everyone.  And in you..and my heart breaks for your adopted son.  I think the difference between you and I is that I do care, 

You misread my post.  I stated I didn't care for purposes of the conversation about Runnells.  That's because both your situation, my son's situation, and Runnells' situation are all quite irrelevant to the question of whether Runnells should be given the benefit of the doubt on his public pronouncements, and the SP should not.

See the distinction?

I may care very much, or not at all, and it doesn't matter one way or the other.

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

You misread my post.  I stated I didn't care for purposes of the conversation about Runnells.  That's because both your situation, my son's situation, and Runnells' situation are all quite irrelevant to the question of whether Runnells should be given the benefit of the doubt on his public pronouncements, and the SP should not.

See the distinction?

I may care very much, or not at all, and it doesn't matter one way or the other.

Okay..but it was easy to misunderstand.  "I don't care" doesn't just come easy and understood.  I see your point but I don't really agree.  It would have just been easier for the SP to do what he was supposed to do. 

[USU78]

10 minutes ago, JulieM said:

You might want to change what you posted earlier then.  There was no initial disciplinary counsel on the 14th to show up to (so how could Jeremy have been a no show?).  It was postponed, so it's incorrect for you to say he was a no show (why would anyone be expected to show up for something that didn't exist on that day?).  You should at least re-word it to make it accurate and truthful.

The following, from my post, is true and accurate:

Quote

 

Runnells' SP met with him twice during Autumn 2015 to investigate Runnells' possible apostacy.

The SP called Runnells to inform him of an impending disciplinary council on 25 Jan 2016.

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. 

Runnells held a press conference to claim victory over the SP because of the postponement.

The SP rescheduled the disciplinary council for 17 Apr 2016.

Runnells requests a late accommodation for the 17 Apr 2016 disciplinary council and his request is denied.

Runnells held a press conference immediately after the 17 Apr 2016 disciplinary council, claiming that he had excommunicated the Church.

 

Just what is inaccurate?  As I stated to ALarson, review the order of events presented by Runnells or the press or anybody else and then come back and impeach this list, an ye dar'.

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I think you know I like you, Bluebell, so please don't take this personally. 

Where we part company is on a very simple issue--In the complete absence of evidence as to what exactly happened to cause the stake president to deny an interpreter for Jeremy, you seem willing to do everything you can to come down on the stake president's side.

In other words, you seem to have prejudged the issue.

Even though the issue is clear--that Jeremy is legally deaf, requested an interpreter, and the stake president denied the request--you seem to want to plead ignorance of the exact specifics.

Pleading ignorance is not a bad thing as far as it goes.

But I find it problematic to plead that our ignorance somehow constitutes a defense of the stake president's decision.

Does that make any sense?

I'm doing what I can to be fair in my conclusions. 

I don't think I've provided a defense of the SP.  I think my last words on the subject were that maybe the SP was wrong but I couldn't say that for certain. Can you show me what you mean when you say that I'm defending his decision?

[consiglieri]

5 minutes ago, Rain said:

 

So without hearing the SP's side of the story then I can't come down on the SP.  

 

So as long as the SP keeps mum, he did no wrong?

Again, it appears you have prejudged the matter in favor of the SP.

[Mystery Meat]

32 minutes ago, Gray said:

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

No unhallowed hand can stop the work, so I am not all that worried about it.

[consiglieri]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm doing what I can to be fair in my conclusions. 

I don't think I've provided a defense of the SP.  I think my last words on the subject were that maybe the SP was wrong but I couldn't say that for certain. Can you show me what you mean when you say that I'm defending his decision?

See the bolded section above.

 

 

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

So as long as the SP keeps mum, he did no wrong?

Again, it appears you have prejudged the matter in favor of the SP.

Saying "I don't know if he did wrong" is very obviously different than saying "he did no wrong". 

[Jeanne]

2 hours 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 think the big question is would the SP have provided an interpreter for any deaf person other than Jeremy. 

[smac97]

On 4/19/2016 at 1:54 PM, USU78 said:

I'm thinking, of course, of the non-waiving-waiver cases against the RCC, where the Church was found liable for breaking the seal of the confessional, notwithstanding it had appeared that the penitent had waived the privilege by speaking about the proceedings of the confession.

It appears to me that Runnells' admission is patent in his online and press-conference-esque publications of his views:  he has never denied having done it all.  The only thing that's left, seems to me, is to determine if the admitted-to activity/statements amount to apostasy.  And it's hard to imagine them not amounting to just that.

Under those circumstances, just what was left to be done?

This was my assessment as well.  I suspect Runnels wanted to (mis)use the disciplinary council.  That is, he wanted to turn it into a platform in which he could put the Church and its doctrines/beliefs on trial.  And I think he wanted "witnesses," not to present testimonial evidence, but to observe and/or participate in Runnels' dog and pony show.  I should point out that Runnels could not make this work under the procedures for witnesses outlined in the CHI, since each witness would only be allowed in the council room for a limited period of time.  However, a translator/interpreter would be able to attend the whole thing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 19, 2016 by smac97

[USU78]

6 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

So as long as the SP keeps mum, he did no wrong?

Again, it appears you have prejudged the matter in favor of the SP.

As you've prejudged in favor of the apostate fighter against the Church, its members and its interests.

[consiglieri]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Saying "I don't know if he did wrong" is very obviously different than saying "he did no wrong". 

I think you probably see yourself as keeping an open mind because all the evidence is not in.  That is a good thing.

What I am hearing you say is a bit different, though.

What I am hearing you say is that it seems like what the SP did was wrong, but maybe there is something out there that you don't know because you haven't heard the SP's version of events that would in some way mitigate the atrocious conduct of the SP in denying Jeremy's request for an interpreter.

And therefore you "don't know" if the SP did wrong.

This seems to me a bit like weighing the evidence in favor of the SP--up to and including considering a set of unknown possibilities that may have occurred that would make the SP's decision less egregious.

Feel free to correct me if I have you wrong.

I am open to correction and often misread people.

Thanks!

 

[USU78]

12 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

  It would have just been easier for the SP to do what he was supposed to do. 

And what, based upon facts, not opinions or prejudices or claims of entitlements, was it that he didn't do that he, under Church rules of governance, should have done under the circumstances at that particular stage of the proceedings?

[JulieM]

7 minutes ago, USU78 said:

The following, from my post, is true and accurate:

Just what is inaccurate?  

There was no council to show up to on the 14th, was there?

So, this is very misleading if not an outright lie:

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

It's ridiculous that you can't see that he wasn't a "no-show" when there was nothing to show up to!  I think you should just remove that sentence from your own time line.

But if you want to keep playing like you don't get it, whatever.

 

[Calm]

CAn't edit, I think Runnells mean he was called toteach the gospel in ASL to Deaf investigators.  It sonds like he also taught Hearing lessons.  I misread andmissed the "in".

Edited April 19, 2016 by Calm

[USU78]

Just now, JulieM said:

There was no council to show up to on the 14th, was there?

So, this is very misleading if not an outright lie:

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

It's ridiculous that you can't see that he wasn't a "no-show" when there was nothing to show up to!  I think you should just remove that sentence from your own time line.

But if you want to keep playing like you don't get it, whatever.

So  ...  you don't like how I presented things?  Just which of those statements was untrue?  Did he appear or didn't he?  Did I or did I not acknowledge that the proceedings were postponed at Runnells' insistance?

Be honest here:  how was it misleading in any way?