Jeremy Runnells Excommunicated

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

He lacks credibility.

And apparently he understood the proceedings sufficiently well to have participated and, immediately afterwards, to hold a press conference.

You do the math.

So, he's not really Deaf?  Didn't really have a need?  Is that what you're getting at?

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

So, he's not really Deaf?  Didn't really have a need?  Is that what you're getting at?

Doesn't matter.  The church is true.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

If you cannot see what was going on in context, given the timeline I posted, I cannot help you.

And yes, your quibble about the 14th is quite correct, but I included the fact of the request in my list as a "late" request without identifying when exactly it happened. 

He did not wait until the "last instant" to make his request as you stated previously.

So what else did you get wrong in your timeline?  

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, USU78 said:

He lacks credibility.

And apparently he understood the proceedings sufficiently well to have participated and, immediately afterwards, to hold a press conference.

You do the math.

This is really ugly and completely unnecessary,   His hearing issues are separate and he deserves consideration for that as anyone would.

[stemelbow]

18 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Uhhhh  ...  he got to go in front of the press at least 3 and possibly more times in order to drum up support and raise money.  Those who like the narrative he is still pushing with this last minute, IMNSHO, deflection are opening their hearts and their checkbooks, Puhraise Jayeezus!  It's all a manipulation and a scam.  He used the process to enrich himself.

He's entitled to no benefit of any doubt, in my view.

Still...what's it to you?  he probably feels like he's doing something worthwhile.  But it can't really be effecting you to the point of being concerned is it? 

[JulieM]

12 minutes ago, USU78 said:

He lacks credibility.

And apparently he understood the proceedings sufficiently well to have participated and, immediately afterwards, to hold a press conference.

You do the math.

So out of everything we could discuss, you're calling him a liar about his hearing disability?

And others are asking what happened to his family member on hospice care?

 

[USU78]

16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

He did not wait until the "last instant" to make his request as you stated previously.

So what else did you get wrong in your timeline?  

I pulled it from his money-raising website.  You tell me.

[USU78]

23 minutes ago, ttribe said:

So, he's not really Deaf?  Didn't really have a need?  Is that what you're getting at?

If the SP, who's far closer to the situation than thee and me, finds it non-credible that he claims to be deaf in April where he was allegedly not sufficiently deaf in March prior to the postponement of the 20 March scheduled council to request accommodation, I for one am going with the guy not raising money and holding press conferences.

Media whores are rarely truly victims.

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I pulled it from his money-raising website.  You tell me.

I'm not the one making accusations that Runnells is being dishonest about his hearing issues.

Edited April 18, 2016 by ALarson

[USU78]

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Still...what's it to you?  he probably feels like he's doing something worthwhile.  But it can't really be effecting you to the point of being concerned is it? 

Media whores are rarely truly victims.

Why do you care if he is truly one of the rare birds?  How's that skin off your nose?

[USU78]

15 minutes ago, JulieM said:

So out of everything we could discuss, you're calling him a liar about his hearing disability?

And others are asking what happened to his family member on hospice care?

He's simply demonstrating himself to be an untrustworthy media whore of a narcissist who's using his 15 minutes to raise his profile and his bank balance.

That's all.  You choose to believe him against all reasonable inferences to be drawn from what he himself admits on his moneyraising website.  That's your right.

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

If the SP, who's far closer to the situation than thee and me, finds it non-credible that he claims to be deaf in April where he was allegedly not sufficiently deaf in March prior to the postponement of the 20 March scheduled council to request accommodation, I for one am going with the guy not raising money and holding press conferences.

Media whores are rarely truly victims.

 

3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Media whores are rarely truly victims.

Why do you care if he is truly one of the rare birds?  How's that skin off your nose?

 

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

He's simply demonstrating himself to be an untrustworthy media whore of a narcissist who's using his 15 minutes to raise his profile and his bank balance.

That's all.  You choose to believe him against all reasonable inferences to be drawn from what he himself admits on his moneyraising website.  That's your right.

Ummm, wow.

[USU78]

22 minutes ago, ALarson said:

This is really ugly and completely unnecessary,   His hearing issues are separate and he deserves consideration for that as anyone would.

My 29-1/2 years raising and being father to the truly handicapped permits me to declare without reservation that he's entitled to such consideration as the merits of his position and his actions allow and no more.  Being deaf or partially deaf is no excuse for violating the categorical imperative for personal gain.  The SP here is not seeking gain or fame:  Runnells is.

But even if I lack the experience I own, it shouldn't matter:  deaf folks aren't pets.

[smac97]

On 4/18/2016 at 1:33 PM, salgare said:

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.

First, the purpose of a disciplinary council is not for the stake president to hop to and answer doctrinal questions from the person charged with improper conduct.

Second, I am rather strongly suspecting that we are not getting the whole story.  The notion that a stake president would refuse to explain to Mr. Runnels "why he was being tried" seems quite farfetched.

Third, there are in the law two interrelated concepts: "findings of fact" and "conclusions of law."  When a judge is rendering a decision/ruling/judgment, she will often include a summary of the factual determinations she made during the hearing/trial (the "findings of fact"), and then explain the legal conclusions she has reached based on applying statutory or common law or whatever principles to those facts (the "conclusions of law").  I present these because I think Mr. Runnels is confused about the point and purpose of a disciplinary council.  In my experience, there is generally very little in the way of "factfinding" in a disciplinary counsel because the person under discipline has confessed or otherwise does not dispute the factual basis for the discipline.  But in this case, Mr. Runnels was trying to argue the facts.  I suspect he did so not because they were in dispute, but because he wanted to have his dog and pony show.  He wanted to be able to exit the disciplinary council and crow about how he stumped the SP with questions the SP couldn't answer.  

The SP, understandably, did not go along with this folderol.  There was no dispute about the factual basis for Mr. Runnel's claims.  Hence no need for "witnesses" (who, I suspect, would not have been able to proffer competent, probative, relevant evidence anyway).  Instead, I think the only issue before the council was whether the not-in-dispute conduct warranted discipline and, if so, what form of discipline.

To the extent the disciplinary council had farcical elements, those elements originated with and were propagated by Mr. Runnels.  I hope he has a change of heart in the future.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 18, 2016 by smac97

[flameburns623]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Good to know about the capitalization.  Will try and remember but when tired older habits cansometimes pop up.

So question, according to the same logic hearing challenged seems to me to imply the same thing, something is broken rather than just different.  What would be an appropriate generic substitute for what we used to label as "disabled", would it be seen as essential in the Deaf community view to separate them out to maintain the identity distinction or is there a label they are satisfied with the use of when speaking generically of improvements that need to be made to address all types of communication and other issues?

The Deaf wish to be known as Deaf. To be respected as having their own literature, their own poetry their own unique history, and their own culture. (Look on YouTube for ASL poetry).

With the caveat that not all Deaf or Hard of Hearing are integrated into the Deaf community to the same degree.

I was Hard-of-Hearing as a youngster, until surgery brought my hearing to a virtually-normal level. I never knew anything about a Deaf community growing up; nor, following military service, when a surgical procedure cost my hearing in my strongest ear and left me dependant on hearing aids. (The surgery that injured me killed the auditory nerve in one ear: with only one functioning auditory nerve remaining, I would never be a candidate for cochlear implants, which work via those nerves).

I became aware of the Deaf as a community the way many did: by way of that movie I mentioned earlier, Children of a Lesser God. Even then, I remained aloof from it and wholly unaware untill the past five years, as my hearing declined further.

My personal details are included to illustrate that there is a spectrum of awareness of and involvement in the Deaf/HoH community.

The closest analogue would be the LGBT community. Some flaunt their differences; some segregate themselves as much as possible from the wider community"; most integrate into that community and want to be treated as normally as possible; and some are unaware that there IS a unique subculture of others like themselves.

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

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.

First, do you know if he uses a translator/interpreter outside of this event?

Second, could you explain your deduction that, "he Church has never had a good record of accommodating those with special needs, especially when it comes to hearing and wheelchairs."  I have worked in the temple for almost a decade and not only are they accommodated we bend over backwards to facilitate their visits.  

Third, a fellow used to grandstanding does not make due with his hated enemies.  Compassion is one thing, but let's not carry this away into silliness. 

[USU78]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm not the one making accusations that Runnells is being dishonest about his hearing issues.

So go there and impeach me here an ye dar'.

Edited April 18, 2016 by USU78
noneofyourbusiness

[USU78]

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Ummm, wow.

Indeed wow.

[USU78]

37 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Doesn't matter.  The church is true.

Unworthy of you, Jeanne.

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, USU78 said:

My 29-1/2 years raising and being father to the truly handicapped permits me to declare without reservation that he's entitled to such consideration as the merits of his position and his actions allow and no more.  Being deaf or partially deaf is no excuse for violating the categorical imperative for personal gain.  The SP here is not seeking gain or fame:  Runnells is.

But even if I lack the experience I own, it shouldn't matter:  deaf folks aren't pets.

Who said they were "pets"?  What a bizarre post.

Runnells should have been allowed to have an interpreter there:

Quote

 

From the Handbook (as lifted from Facebook--my bolding):

"Interpreters for Deaf or Hearing-Impaired Members:

Members who are deaf or hearing impaired face communication obstacles in learning gospel principles and doctrines. If they use sign language, they need interpreters to help them participate fully in Church meetings, priesthood ordinances, temple work, testimony bearing, interviews, and activities.

Members who are deaf or hearing impaired are encouraged to be self-reliant and take the initiative to work with their priesthood leaders in coordinating the interpreting services they need. In preparation for sensitive situations such as personal interviews or Church disciplinary councils, priesthood leaders consult with the member to determine whether to use an interpreter. In these circumstances, leaders should seek an interpreter who is not a family member (if possible) and emphasize confidentiality.

 

If his request had been granted how would that have been for "personal gain"?

The Stake President made an error in refusing his request.  I'm not saying he's a bad man....we all make mistakes.  But, you are way out of line to accuse Runnells of not being honest regarding his hearing and that he did not have a right to have an interpreter at his hearing.

Edited April 18, 2016 by ALarson

[ttribe]

10 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Indeed wow.

Do you really think that this aggressive defense of yours is helpful to the image of the Church?  Do you really think attacking this man's physical impairment is either necessary or useful to a defense of the Church's image and actions in this case?  Do you really think the use of a misogynistic term ("whore") is necessary and beneficial to your argument?  There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Jeremy Runnells that engaging in this type of criticism is just...well...classless.

[USU78]

Just now, ALarson said:

Who said they were "pets"?  What a bizarre post.

Runnells should have been allowed to have an interpreter there:

Why do you believe he wanted an interpreter there for "personal gain"?  The Stake President made an error in refusing his request.  I'm not saying he's a bad man....we all make mistakes.  But, you are way out of line to accuse Runnells of not being honest regarding his hearing and that he did not have a right to have an interpreter at his hearing.

If you excuse somebody's bad behavior or insist that considerations be given because of an accident of nature such that the somebody is not held to the same ethical and moral standards of behavior as everybody else, you make that person less than human:  you make that person a pet.  And that as well is violative of the categorical imperative. 

Handicapped folks, in my experience (at least those whose handicaps are sufficiently profound to need serious intervention) hate being treated as pets, hate being talked to like children, and appreciate more than anything else not being trivialized.  To excuse Runnells' bad behavior on account of a claimed handicap trivializes him and especially does damage to the deaf  ...  but, as the sage stated when asked where he was going, "Wherever the people are as green as the money."

You are going way out on a limb to claim to know sufficiently what was happening in the council and whether it would even be useful to have an ASL translator present:  for all you and I know, he was handed a piece of paper and asked if he had questions.

But, dang it, he needs money:  his website says so.  So, dang it, give him the benefit of the doubt in all things because he's [sob] a Victim(tm).  Open up your hearts and your checkbooks.  America is the most generous nation on earth:  give!  Give!  GIVE! to Runnells!

[USU78]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

Do you really think that this aggressive defense of yours is helpful to the image of the Church?  Do you really think attacking this man's physical impairment is either necessary or useful to a defense of the Church's image and actions in this case?  Do you really think the use of a misogynistic term ("whore") is necessary and beneficial to your argument?  There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Jeremy Runnells that engaging in this type of criticism is just...well...classless.

Do you honestly care about the image of the Church?

I am merely being Cassandra here:  telling the truth and being disbelieved.  It's my lot in life:  my handicap.

So how's about a little something, you know, for the effort, you know?

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

But, dang it, he needs money:  his website says so.  So, dang it, give him the benefit of the doubt in all things because he's [sob] a Victim(tm).  Open up your hearts and your checkbooks.  America is the most generous nation on earth:  give!  Give!  GIVE! to Runnells!

What does his Deafness have to do with giving him money?  He asked for an interpreter at his hearing.  He was denied.  The denial was, in all likelihood, erroneous and only added fuel to the fire.  That he asks for donations to support his ongoing cause (which I think is a bad idea, BTW), is quite beside the point.

[ttribe]

5 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Do you honestly care about the image of the Church?

I am merely being Cassandra here:  telling the truth and being disbelieved.  It's my lot in life:  my handicap.

So how's about a little something, you know, for the effort, you know?

So, now you're making this about me?  That's lovely.

What is it you think you know about my position on the image of the Church that would be good faith grounds for your question?

What "truth" are you telling?  Your conjecture that Runnells is not "deaf enough" to require an interpreter in a group meeting?  Where's your evidence for that?  His other actions unrelated to his hearing?

I've given no money to Runnells.  I will never give any money to Runnells.  I've gone on record elsewhere that I think his decision to ask for money severely harms any credibility he once might have had (something I'm not even opining on, BTW).  But, his requests for money have, AFAIK, never had any link to his hearing, or lack thereof.  You seem to be the one on the warpath about the issue.

Edited April 18, 2016 by ttribe