Jeremy Runnells Excommunicated

[JAHS]

33 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So, even though the SP was following procedure in not answering questions from Jeremy, I think that's what makes the leaders look bad.

Recording the meeting makes Jeremy look worse.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

Thanks for your kind words.

I spent a little time writing that.

Time which feels a little wasted know that we see more of what really transpired.

I was educated by your input and greatly appreciate your making the effort.  It was not wasted on me, if that helps.

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Bluebell, the SP didn't at first.  It didn't matter that he changes his mind, as far as our previous arguing was concerned.  Because at the time, all we had to go on was that Jeremy said there wouldn't be an interpreter.  Which proves to be correct.  In the recorded DC, Jeremy shows surprise that one is provided, and the SP could have at that very moment said that there always was going to be one, he didn't refute that he told Jeremy that one wasn't going to be provided.  So our back and forths over this matter should stick within the time frame of it being said he wasn't going to be provided one.  

If the SP did provide an interpreter, and Runnells knew that but let everyone think that he didn't, then that absolutely does matter in as far as it makes Runnells look like a lying jerk.  But as i said, it's not other people's fault that they believed Runnells.

But don't try to suggest that Runnells, telling people after the fact that his interpreter had been turned away, has nothing to do with the topic.  It has a lot to do with it.  The back-and-forth over this matter was in large part due to what Runnells claimed after he left the DC.

(If he did in fact claim that-something that people have said did happen so i'm going off of their words-but i haven't read it for myself).

 

[Jeanne]

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

Exactly. It's his testimony that JS is a fraud and the church is as well and he has publicly declared it. 

That's a statement of belief that is incompatible with his membership in the church. 

 

bluebell and others, I have recently come across some different info that is going to take me out of the conversation.  I will let you guys have at it.  Because I cannot divulge and CFR..this makes a difference in my understanding and honesty without hurting others.  I hear you,  I wish Jeremy many good things and do I think the SP is a big bad person, no..all of us make mistakes and I think he made one..but I don't know him.

Thanks all for putting up with Jeanne. 

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

bluebell and others, I have recently come across some different info that is going to take me out of the conversation.  I will let you guys have at it.  Because I cannot divulge and CFR..this makes a difference in my understanding and honesty without hurting others.  I hear you,  I wish Jeremy many good things and do I think the SP is a big bad person, no..all of us make mistakes and I think he made one..but I don't know him.

Thanks all for putting up with Jeanne. 

You have every right to stay put, you're always respectful too.  I'm the one that should go, because if Bluebell is reading...I disagree that the SP was going to provide an interpreter the whole time.  It shows that he did at the last moment yes, but at one time, no.

[Calm]

9 hours ago, Rico said:

 You claim here that his questions have long ago been addressed.  

 

You keep saying this or some variation of it.  While I have taken some time to see if anything I have said might reasonably be interpreted that way, I have not reread all my posts but not only do the ones I have read not provide any hint of this claim of yours, I find it highly unlikely I would say something like this given I have devoted hundreds of hours to providing answers/responses for those who have asked, even if they have asked from a position of disbelief, both on this board and with FairMormon.

Please stop making this claim I am claiming this and take more time to get this and other comments of yours about my comments more accurate.  I find it extremely frustrating to have to spend the majority of a post correcting misinterpretations that are, imo, relatively easy to avoid.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

You have every right to stay put, you're always respectful too.  I'm the one that should go, because if Bluebell is reading...I disagree that the SP was going to provide an interpreter the whole time.  It shows that he did at the last moment yes, but at one time, no.

I'll try to be more clear.

I never said that the SP was going to provide an interpreter the whole time (that's not even an issue i've ever discussed on here).  

What is being discussed is what Runnells said after the DC was over. Even though Runnells ended up having access to an interpreter he let everyone believe that he didn't, which is underhanded and dishonest.  That's the issue-after Runnells knew he did actually have an interpreter, he purposefully still let people believe that he didn't by telling them that his interpreter was turned away but not telling them that he was turned away because one was already provided.

[Gray]

37 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Recording the meeting makes Jeremy look worse.

Having read the transcript, I'm not sure anyone came out of it looking great. Both had some valid points and both had some blind spots. I guess that's the human experience, though. 

Edited April 20, 2016 by Gray

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

bluebell and others, I have recently come across some different info that is going to take me out of the conversation.  I will let you guys have at it.  Because I cannot divulge and CFR..this makes a difference in my understanding and honesty without hurting others.  I hear you,  I wish Jeremy many good things and do I think the SP is a big bad person, no..all of us make mistakes and I think he made one..but I don't know him.

Thanks all for putting up with Jeanne. 

I'm really not sure what you are saying here, but I hope everything is o.k. and hope you will still be around!

[rongo]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I agree that the recording makes the leaders look bad.  Handbook 1 does quote D&C 102:17 in saying that half of the high councilors are to stand up on behalf of the accused.  While that didn't seem to happen, Jeremy also didn't let the disciplinary council run its course.  So we don't know what would have occurred had he proceeded.

The drawing of lots and assigning of the high council to various roles happened before Runnels was invited in, so that wouldn't have been in the recording (or in his presence). Similarly, the deliberation part (where the assigned high councilors execute those roles) also happened after Runnels left the room (this always is in the person's absence ---- after deliberation, the stake presidency withdraws to deliberate and pray, then announces to the high council the decision, then with the high council formulates the conditions to be explained verbally and in the decision letter. At all of these stages, the high councilors assigned by lot to ensure that the person has been properly handled execute their role, but this is in the absence of the person).

 

Edited April 20, 2016 by rongo

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

That only works if Runnells had looked good. 

I agree that Jeremy didn't look good either.  But I don't think that matters as much.  It's the Church that has the higher risk if this recording gets widespread attention.

[rockpond]

17 minutes ago, rongo said:

The drawing of lots and assigning of the high council to various roles happened before Runnels was invited in, so that wouldn't have been in the recording (or in his presence). Similarly, the deliberation part (where the assigned high councilors execute those roles) also happened after Runnels left the room (this always is in the person's absence ---- after deliberation, the stake presidency withdraws to deliberate and pray, then announces to the high council the decision, then with the high council formulates the conditions to be explained verbally and in the decision letter. At all of these stages, the high councilors assigned by lot to ensure that the person has been properly handled execute their role, but this is in the absence of the person).

 

I understand.  Like you, I've participated in these councils (on the bishopric side).  That's why I said, Jeremy didn't let the council run its course so we don't really know.  And even though the deliberation takes place behind closed doors, if they had gotten to the portion where the HC asks questions, we might have heard some questions that were more supportive of Jeremy.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I don't know much about these DC's, is it okay for Jeremy to ex himself like that.  Or can they turn out around and ex him?  Probably in the past this was the case, but now not so much, because of people hiring attorneys when they wish to resign instead of being ex'd.  

It's my feeling that Jeremy didn't let it get to the point of the church ex'g him and he quickly resigned beforehand.  Curious to know what would have happened in the end had he not though.  

There's nothing that says he can't hand over a resignation letter.  But, there is nothing stopping them from excommunicating him.  Since they were already through much of the DC, I would expect that they followed procedure, deliberated, made a decision, and may be sending that decision to Jeremy in a letter.  Or maybe they just accepted his resignation and went home.

If Jeremy ever wanted to be baptized again, it's an easier process if he was excommunicated.  If they process it as a resignation, it requires FP approval for him to get re-baptized (not so for excommunication).

[USU78]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I wrote my post late or early this morning.  So didn't realize they probably didn't respond either way.  Since it was mandated that there would be no answers to his questions.  So these men very well could have read the essays or CES letter, they just weren't going to give any answers of any kind.

Would you agree that this is probably because (a) they had reason to suspect Runnells would record the proceedings surreptitiously (as he did), (b) nothing useful for Runnells could be done by engaging and, thereby, encouraging his counterproductive (from the Church's POV) grandstanding for Runnells' later audience, and (c) the issue at hand was Runnells' apostasy and spiritual welfare, not whether any or all of Runnells' theses had any merit?

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

There's nothing that says he can't hand over a resignation letter.  But, there is nothing stopping them from excommunicating him.  Since they were already through much of the DC, I would expect that they followed procedure, deliberated, made a decision, and may be sending that decision to Jeremy in a letter.  Or maybe they just accepted his resignation and went home.

CH1 (church policy) prohibits a person avoiding excommunication by resigning. The handbook instructs to hold a disciplinary council even if a resignation is received, if there is a discipline-able offense.

[USU78]

An interesting article posted by Herrn Professor Doktor Peterson:

http://www.withoutend.org/learn-jeremy-runnells-thoughts-departure-church/

I agree with much of this, disagree with some of this.

[ksfisher]

30 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 

If Jeremy ever wanted to be baptized again, it's an easier process if he was excommunicated.  If they process it as a resignation, it requires FP approval for him to get re-baptized (not so for excommunication).

I'd have to double check, but I believe that a Melchizedek Priesthood holder who is excommunicated does have to have First Presidency approval to be rebaptized.   The Stake Presidency and High Council gives their recommendation that the person be repatized, but I'm pretty sure it has to be formally approved by the First Presidency. 

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

If the SP did provide an interpreter, and Runnells knew that but let everyone think that he didn't, then that absolutely does matter in as far as it makes Runnells look like a lying jerk.  But as i said, it's not other people's fault that they believed Runnells.

But don't try to suggest that Runnells, telling people after the fact that his interpreter had been turned away, has nothing to do with the topic.  It has a lot to do with it.  The back-and-forth over this matter was in large part due to what Runnells claimed after he left the DC.

(If he did in fact claim that-something that people have said did happen so i'm going off of their words-but i haven't read it for myself).

 

I think you are right that the issue of the alleged denial of having an interpreter present at the disciplinary hearing "has a lot to do with it."

If Jeremy Runnells knew that his SP had agreed to provide an interpreter, but only refused to allow Jeremy to provide his own interpreter, then that is something that harms Jeremy's credibility, in my opinion.

If, on the other hand, the SP initially denied Jeremy's request to have an interpreter present, and then surprised Jeremy by actually having an interpreter show up at the hearing without advising Jeremy beforehand, I can better understand Jeremy's seeming surprise at the presence of the interpreter when he got to the hearing.

Does anybody have any facts to shed light on this question?

[bluebell]

38 minutes ago, USU78 said:

An interesting article posted by Herrn Professor Doktor Peterson:

http://www.withoutend.org/learn-jeremy-runnells-thoughts-departure-church/

I agree with much of this, disagree with some of this.

Looks like it was written by someone other than Peterson, which I'm sure you knew. I'm just putting it out as an FYI for others who may miss that. 

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I'll try to be more clear.

I never said that the SP was going to provide an interpreter the whole time (that's not even an issue i've ever discussed on here).  

What is being discussed is what Runnells said after the DC was over. Even though Runnells ended up having access to an interpreter he let everyone believe that he didn't, which is underhanded and dishonest.  That's the issue-after Runnells knew he did actually have an interpreter, he purposefully still let people believe that he didn't by telling them that his interpreter was turned away but not telling them that he was turned away because one was already provided.

I am reading from bottom to top in this thread, so just saw this by Bluebell.

Did Jeremy say AFTER the hearing that he was not provided an interpreter?

If so, I agree that would be a problem affecting Jeremy's credibility.

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

Recording the meeting makes Jeremy look worse.

Not wanting the meeting recorded makes the Church look worse still.

[ttribe]

Just now, consiglieri said:

I am reading from bottom to top in this thread, so just saw this by Bluebell.

Did Jeremy say AFTER the hearing that he was not provided an interpreter?

If so, I agree that would be a problem affecting Jeremy's credibility.

 

If I understand correctly, Jeremy told the crowd that the interpreter HE brought was turned away.  He did not disclose to the crowd that the SP had actually provided an interpreter.  That failure to disclose on Runnells' part is not good.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I think you are right that the issue of the alleged denial of having an interpreter present at the disciplinary hearing "has a lot to do with it."

If Jeremy Runnells knew that his SP had agreed to provide an interpreter, but only refused to allow Jeremy to provide his own interpreter, then that is something that harms Jeremy's credibility, in my opinion.

If, on the other hand, the SP initially denied Jeremy's request to have an interpreter present, and then surprised Jeremy by actually having an interpreter show up at the hearing without advising Jeremy beforehand, I can better understand Jeremy's seeming surprise at the presence of the interpreter when he got to the hearing.

Does anybody have any facts to shed light on this question?

For my part, the surprise is not the issue. It's that after the DC was over Runnells let people believe that an interpreter wasn't present when one was. 

And then used that belief to further his agenda against the church.

[consiglieri]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

 

If I understand correctly, Jeremy told the crowd that the interpreter HE brought was turned away.  He did not disclose to the crowd that the SP had actually provided an interpreter.  That failure to disclose on Runnells' part is not good.

I think it is important when you are positioning yourself as the champion of truth to be completely transparent and above-board.

[consiglieri]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

For my part, the surprise is not the issue. It's that after the DC was over Runnells let people believe that an interpreter wasn't present when one was. 

And then used that belief to further his agenda against the church.

Bluebell--1

Consiglieri--0