Jeremy Runnells Excommunicated

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

See the bolded section above.

 

 

So because I don't know if he's wrong I'm defending him?  

That makes no sense.  I can ease your concerns though now that I know the bar has been set so low.

I don't know if Runnel is wrong. 

There.  According to your standards I'm now defending him and you can rest easy.

 

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

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

How can we possibly know?

[JulieM]

8 minutes ago, USU78 said:

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?

You can't possibly be this dense  

Rather that to admit you worded something incorrectly, you'd rather look not so bright?  

There wasn't a disciplinary counsel on the 14th.  How can you be a "no-show" to something that doesn't exist?

Did you say the counsel was postponed previously on your time line?

edited to add:

It's ok.  I've lost interest in this as I can see you're just fine making that misleading statement and leaving it as it is.  

Edited April 19, 2016 by JulieM

[Gray]

17 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

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

Well, certainly not Jeremy Runnels. But we shouldn't think the church is bullet proof. 

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

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!

 

I am definitely weighing the evidence more in favor of the SP on some of the issues. I've explained why that is.

On the topic of the interpreter being allowed in the DC, I'm more neutral. I do find it hard to trust Runnel based on other experiences with him though. 

I'm not unbiased (none of us here are).

[USU78]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

You can't possibly be this dense  

Rather that to admit you worded something incorrectly, you'd rather look not so bright?  

There wasn't a disciplinary counsel on the 14th.  How can you be a "no-show" to something that doesn't exist?

Did you say the counsel was postponed previously on your time line?

You don't like how I presented things.  I get that.  You don't like my use of the term "no-show."  I get that.  That doesn't make my timeline counterfactual or misleading.  Were you misled?  Of course not.  Was anybody misled?  Of course not.

Big lotta nothing so far.

Anything else?

[Jeanne]

12 minutes ago, USU78 said:

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?

It is my understanding that the provisions for an interpreter is required if needed in the CHI. 

[Jeanne]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

How can we possibly know?

Who knows..  Not a lot of deaf people have disciplinary courts or are exed.  But to me, it is still a good question.  To me, because the SP did not know the level or severity of Jeremy's hearing, should have been reason enough to do what was right.  This would have put the ball in Jeremy's court..so this is why I don't understand the SP's reasoning on this.  It surely did not benefit the church to not follow the direction of CHI.

[USU78]

Just now, Jeanne said:

It is my understanding that the provisions for an interpreter is required if needed in the CHI. 

That would rather depend upon what was going to be going on at the particular disciplinary hearing, wouldn't it?

And nobody that knows is saying.

Nobody that knows may say anything.

Only Runnells is left, and he hasn't even said what went on beyond very conclusory statements that, under the circumstances, must be viewed as highly suspect.

Quote

 

 

[smac97]

On 4/19/2016 at 2:35 PM, Jeanne said:

It is my understanding that the provisions for an interpreter is required if needed in the CHI. 

CFR, if you please (I am not aware of a particular provision about this in the CHI, but I am happy to be corrected on that point).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Jeanne]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I am definitely weighing the evidence more in favor of the SP on some of the issues. I've explained why that is.

On the topic of the interpreter being allowed in the DC, I'm more neutral. I do find it hard to trust Runnel based on other experiences with him though. 

I'm not unbiased (none of us here are).

I admire you bluebell.  You are trying to be as fair as you can be.  In my very first post on this thread.  I wished Jeremy well but stated in a way that he needed to find peace with some humility which is sorely needed.  It is hard to be fair in a world that isn't always fair.

[Tacenda]

30 minutes ago, USU78 said:

You don't like how I presented things.  I get that.  You don't like my use of the term "no-show."  I get that.  That doesn't make my timeline counterfactual or misleading.  Were you misled?  Of course not.  Was anybody misled?  Of course not.

Big lotta nothing so far.

Anything else?

Imo, in a court of law, you'd be misleading.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Tacenda

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

That would rather depend upon what was going to be going on at the particular disciplinary hearing, wouldn't it?

And nobody that knows is saying.

Nobody that knows may say anything.

Only Runnells is left, and he hasn't even said what went on beyond very conclusory statements that, under the circumstances, must be viewed as highly suspect.

 

 

You are right.  We don't know the other side of the story.  I would love to know.  I would love to be wrong. 

[Jeanne]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

CFR, if you please (I am not aware of a particular provision about this in the CHI, but I am happy to be corrected on that point).

Thanks,

-Smac

I thought I read here on this thread.  Not sure what page or anything.  Can somebody help me?  I read it here. 

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

In a court of law, you'd be misleading.

And your experience there consists of  ...  ?

[USU78]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

You are right.  We don't know the other side of the story.  I would love to know.  I would love to be wrong. 

Fair enough.

[Rain]

34 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.

You are putting words into my mouth and saying I said something I did NOT say.  In fact, I said specifically said, " 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" -  in other words if this happened he was in the wrong.   

Don't twist what I said.  

[JulieM]

28 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Anything else?

Meh.

I already said I've lost interest.  

 

Keep your misleading sentence in your self made time line about an event that didn't happen on that date and a person that wasn't there for it  

Edited April 19, 2016 by JulieM

[Tacenda]

16 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I thought I read here on this thread.  Not sure what page or anything.  Can somebody help me?  I read it here. 

You did, and there was a link to the handbook.  I'd just have to go through them all, I would if I wasn't going to school soon.  Hopefully someone will re-post or share the link.

[Russell C McGregor]

8 hours ago, salgare said:

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

No you are not.

I answered your CFR here:

That you did not like it is irrelevant. The fact is that I answered it. There is no "outstanding CFR."

8 hours ago, salgare said:

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

Given that you whined to the mods some time ago and they've taken no action, that would seem to be their verdict.

You see, unlike the spite site where you are (or were) a so-called "moderator," the moderators here don't join in hog-piling.

So we shall take it as given (NPI) that when you claim that "MFB sealed the deal of this being a movement" (i.e. the so-called "Givens movement" that exists nowhere but in your imagination) in reality he did no such thing.

 

[Tacenda]

19 minutes ago, USU78 said:

And your experience there consists of  ...  ?

In my opinion and that of watching court shows I guess.

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

You did, and there was a link to the handbook.  I'd just have to go through them all, I would if I wasn't going to school soon.  Hopefully someone will re-post or share the link.

Thanks..I will look too.   It is nice to know that I am not crazy!  Have fun at school smarty pants!

[Russell C McGregor]

3 hours 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. 

I don't agree.

Given the Stake President's many interactions with Mister Runnells, he probably knows how well he can hear.

And given Mister Runnells's many delays and burdensome demands, it's quite reasonable to see that one as yet another in the series; and which the Stake President had every right to be fed up with.

And given that Mister Runnells brought his "resignation letter" to the council with him, it's difficult to see that there would be anything for him to miss anyway.

Mister Runnells is an attention-seeking publicity hound. The "interpreter" incident is just another example of that.

But I do understand why you'd identify so closely with him.

 

[USU78]

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

In my opinion and that of watching court shows I guess.

You just made my day, T.  Thanks!  Dr Pepper snorted all over my laptop, but hey ...

[JulieM]

17 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

In my opinion and that of watching court shows I guess.

You're the best!!

But you were right about it being misleading.  No reputable attorney would hang their case on a statement about a person who didn't attend a meeting that didn't take place on the date given.  haha  

Edited April 19, 2016 by JulieM