Jeremy Runnells Excommunicated

[Duncan]

7 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

Couple of things: most HoH (Hard-of-Hearing) and Deaf read lips very well in one-on-one exchanges. But that requires intense concentration on one speaket.

Second: if Jeremy were using a 'Terp, that person would have been in Jeremy's field of vision, usually somewhere behind the Hearing speakers, and not necessarily in the scope of the camera field.

A fluent user of ASL can communicate across a football field. There is no "whispering in a corner" in ASL' short of hiding behind a curtain or leaving the room. 

Could I suggest to you, respectfully, that you read up just a little on Deaf culture and the special challenges faced by Deaf and Hard of Hearing? It is very distinct from Hearing culture.

The following site is run by a Mormon guy. You don't have to try to learn ASL (I did try, and believe me, it is tough going); but Dr. Bill includes some accompanying articles:

http://www.lifeprint.com

one of my friends is partially deaf, wwe have two couples in our ward who are deaf and my brother does ASL in his job, I am okay but thanks

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, Duncan said:

his interview/statement afterwards, in the open air, windy parking lot.

That's an entirely different setting and he was mainly just giving a statement to the press.  I suggest you read what flameburns posted to (the link).

As I stated before, I'm sensitive to this topic because of my Father having hearing issues for most of his life.  Group situations are very, very difficult for him and he usually just will sit and not participate (because there is too much going on and he can't hear anyone clearly) vs. when he's talking one-on-one with someone (which is very different for him and he communicates and hears quite well in that situation).   If you can't see the difference, so be it

13 minutes ago, Duncan said:

By the way on page three of his paper he quotes Pres. Clark as saying  “If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.”

now his supporters are telling me that I am not allowed to question him? okay

You are speaking of two completely different topics here.  You are questioning Runnell's honesty regarding his hearing issues.  

.

Edited April 18, 2016 by ALarson

[Duncan]

Just now, ALarson said:

That's an entirely different setting.  I suggest you read what flameburns posted to (the link).

As I stated before, I'm sensitive to this topic because of my Father having hearing issues for most of his life.  Group situations are very, very difficult for him and he usually just will sit and not participate vs. when he's talking on- on-one with someone (which is entirely different for him).   If you can't see the difference, then that's fine.

You are speaking of two entirely different topics here.  You are questioning Rummell's honesty regarding his hearing issues.  

no, I get it, I totally get it

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

For those who wonder why Runnells even wanted to still be a member of the Church after having publicly expressed his loss of belief, I asked him during a conversation at Reddit, and this was his response:

 

 

I have seen this quote before.  I so understood at the time how he felt.  I have great love for my ancestors and although, off the records, still consider my self part of the mormon heritage. 

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

 

Second: if Jeremy were using a 'Terp, that person would have been in Jeremy's field of vision, usually somewhere behind the Hearing speakers, and not necessarily in the scope of the camera field.

I was looking at the shadows to see if it was possible that one was of an interpreter, but no joy.

[flameburns623]

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

 I would like to hear the SP's side of the story though of course this is unlikely to happen given the Church policy (which I agree with keeping except in extreme situations which I don't believe this is one).  I wonder if an option of have a Church provided interpreter was offered, but there would be a delay of the court if so and this could have been not acceptable to Runnells while having his interpreter at the court was felt to be against the rules by the SP.  Or if Runnell did not make the request until he showed up at the court with his interpreter when he could have made the request earlier.  If it was just flat out rejected because it was believed Runnells' wouldn't have a problem with it, that is troubling if Runnells' took the time to explain why it was needed and just didn't demand they use his interpreter.  

There are reasonable reasons why he needed them, whether he was reasonable and the SP was not about this specific issue or the reverse, at this point I don't think we can reasonably conclude.

The request was made, and the Stake President declined to accommodate, at least two or three days prior to the hearing.

I am friends with Runnells on Facebook, though I mostly filter his jabs at the CoJCoLDS off my page, so I do know when he started making this issue a talking-point.

BTW, there were two earlier hearings which were rescheduled, at least one because Runnells had personal matters at hand.

So the Church representatives were not entirely discompassionate, just a bit tone-deaf vis'a'vis the special needs of the Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Duncan said:

his interview/statement afterwards, in the open air, windy parking lot.

 

By the way on page three of his paper he quotes Pres. Clark as saying  “If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.”

now his supporters are telling me that I am not allowed to question him? the hypocrisy 

I don't think I, flameburn or A Larson (the ones I remember as being involved in the interpreter discussion) can be accurately defined as "his supporters".

[Jeanne]

59 minutes ago, Gray said:

I have some minor hearing loss,nd I can have individual conversations, but it's useless to try to talk to anyone at a party. I can only imagine how that would be compounded by serious hearing loss. 

It is not fun..it is like being in a world all by yourself sometimes and trying hard to be a part of it.  One thing we have to realize is that because a person doesn't hear..doesn't mean he doesn't listen.  This may make sense only to me... Gray, hope your minor hearing loss remains minor.  I used to sing and play instruments..now I can't find the darn melody. 

 

Edited April 18, 2016 by Jeanne

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

The request was made, and the Stake President declined to accommodate, at least two or three days prior to the hearing.

I am friends with Runnells on Facebook, though I mostly filter his jabs at the CoJCoLDS off my page, so I do know when he started making this issue a talking-point.?..

So the Church representatives were not entirely discompassionate, just a bit tone-deaf vis'a'vis the special needs of the Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing.

Good to know, thanks.  Maybe this will help in educating some (the few that pay attention to controversies  ) in how to better help hard of hearing individuals.  I know of some who no longer come to Church because it is too stressful and some members think that just getting a better hearing aid is all that is needed or using the Church's adaptors or whatever they are.

[Duncan]

Just now, Calm said:

I don't think I, flameburn or A Larson (the ones I remember as being involved in the interpreter discussion) can be accurately defined as "his supporters".

not you! but Runnells is all up in the other people's business but as soon as I and obviously a host of others say hold on a second at least I get this whole schmeckel about not asking those kinds of questions or move on or whatever, in the last half hour! Runnells is allowed but not me or anyone else?!

[Storm Rider]

6 minutes ago, Duncan said:

not you! but Runnells is all up in the other people's business but as soon as I and obviously a host of others say hold on a second at least I get this whole schmeckel about not asking those kinds of questions or move on or whatever, in the last half hour! Runnells is allowed but not me or anyone else?!

Victimhood is choice soapbox from which to speak.  You need to play a bigger victim card to get their attention - you don't have it and thus off to the gallows with you.  

[flameburns623]

20 minutes ago, Duncan said:

one of my friends is partially deaf, wwe have two couples in our ward who are deaf and my brother does ASL in his job, I am okay but thanks

If you ever come into contact with the Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing community, they will likely call you out for not capitalizing the words Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing. It signifies Deafness as an identity, rather than as a condition.

And never speak of "hearing-impaired", which implies that the Deaf/HoH person is somehow "broken". Anyone who has seen Children of a Lesser God, (probably not LDS-approved), might recall that this was one of the chief tensions between the leading characters.

[Gray]

13 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

It is not fun..it is like being in a world all by yourself sometimes and trying hard to be a part of it.  One thing we have to realize is that because a person doesn't hear..doesn't mean he doesn't listen.  This may make sense only to me... Gray, hope your minor hearing loss remains minor.  I used to sing and play instruments..now I can't find the darn melody. 

 

Thanks Jeanne, I try to stay away from anything that would make it worse

[Calm]

I don't think anyone here is protesting questioning Runnells' motives in general.

But how one addresses disabilities is a different topic than addressing arguments about beliefs, etc.

My POV is even if Runnells was completely trying to manipulate the situation, there is a certain protocol that should be followed when interacting with disable individuals to ensure that as much as possible is done to give them the same comfort that others experience in social and other situations and it would appear for some reason it was not done in this case unless Runnells is completely misrepresenting the interaction with the SP.

[ttribe]

7 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

If you ever come into contact with the Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing community, they will likely call you out for not capitalizing the words Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing. It signifies Deafness as an identity, rather than as a condition.

And never speak of "hearing-impaired", which implies that the Deaf/HoH person is somehow "broken". Anyone who has seen Children of a Lesser God, (probably not LDS-approved), might recall that this was one of the chief tensions between the leading characters.

Agreed.  My wife served a Deaf-Program mission back in the 90s and then worked as an ASL interpreter for a number of years afterward.  The cultural issues are significant.

[USU78]

4 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

 So what's the point of allowing them to make a mockery of the process and him.

Huh?  What exactly made the proceedings a mockery?

What or who, precisely, was being mocked?

Who gets to decide how "mockery" is to be defined in this context?

Why does that person/those persons get the title of definer(s) of mockery?

Questions.  Questions.

[USU78]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't think anyone here is protesting questioning Runnells' motives in general.

I do believe certain posters are giving Runnells a pass because he is on the right team.  His late claim lacks credibility, in my view, and I for one completely support Stake authorities' decision not to permit him to manipulate events again by compounding his demands at the last instant in the proceedings.

Edited April 18, 2016 by USU78
fat right little finger that hits enter too dang quick

[USU78]

4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

I think the Jeremy Runnels episode has illustrated to a wide audience not only that there are numerous problematic issues surrounding Mormonism, but that Mormonism has few good answers for them.

Ridiculous tendentious and injudicious.

[salgare]

4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

I think the Jeremy Runnels episode has illustrated to a wide audience not only that there are numerous problematic issues surrounding Mormonism, but that Mormonism has few good answers for them.

and making this apparent publicly will get you excommunicated

[salgare]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

Yes, that's how databases work. You can't just delete people. You need a record that they've asked to be deleted, and move them to a different list. 

sure you can:

ALTER TABLE dbo.T2
   DROP CONSTRAINT FK_T1_T2   -- or whatever it's called

ALTER TABLE dbo.T2
   ADD CONSTRAINT FK_T1_T2_Cascade
   FOREIGN KEY (EmployeeID) REFERENCES dbo.T1(EmployeeID) ON DELETE CASCADE

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I do believe certain posters are giving Runnells a pass because he is on the right team. 

If you are referring to me, you could not be more wrong.  I would stand up for anyone with a handicap who was making a reasonable request.

The "right team"?  That's funny.  I have stated several times here that I have issues with Runnells and how he has handled all of this.

 

16 minutes ago, USU78 said:

His late claim lacks credibility, in my view, and I for one completely support Stake authorities' decision not to permit him to manipulate events again by compounding his demands at the last instant in the proceedings.

He's having surgery today on his ears.  But his "claim lacks credibility"?  Um...ok 

And, I believe he asked days in advance (not "at the last instant" as you state above).  

.

Edited April 18, 2016 by ALarson

[gopher]

I thought I read he had compiled over 9,000 pages of material which is why he felt he deserved to get paid for his efforts.  Did he really expect his Bishop or Stake President to take the time to study the CES letter and all the material he had collected?  Seems a lot to ask of the local leaders who are already overworked.  Why not come to this site and ask your questions?  The apologists here are very knowledgeable and willing to answer all questions posted, no matter how far out they may be.

 

[salgare]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Do you disagree with that?  If so, could you explain your position?

From the little I read this morning, he had narrowed his questions to about 3 or 4.  Since they were trying him on questions he had asked (ces letter) it would seem reasonable that the court would be about the questions.  His questions to them to please identify the question/questions which were so offensive as to cause the court, to please identify those questions and identify what is so offensive about them.

My understanding was he resigned after they refused to answer these few questions.  It would seem totally unreasonable, even kangaroo courtish to refuse him answer as to why he was being tried.

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

someone asked him a question at the end , he heard and responded. Now he's saying he was denied ASL interepretation because he can't hear? please

You seriously need to back down. I haven't worked with the Deaf but I do have professional credentials. This matter is very separate from the excommunication or the other craziness. The Church has never had a good record of accommodating those with special needs, especially when it comes to hearing and wheelchairs. I would make a charitable guess that his leaders were used to him adapting so didn't see the need, and he is a fellow known for grandstanding. Nevertheless, the SP was shockingly wrong in denying an interpreter.

[stemelbow]

27 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I do believe certain posters are giving Runnells a pass because he is on the right team.  His late claim lacks credibility, in my view, and I for one completely support Stake authorities' decision not to permit him to manipulate events again by compounding his demands at the last instant in the proceedings.

Sounds like excommunicating him wasn't going far enough--off with his head!