Jeremy Runnells Excommunicated

[USU78]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

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.

Money and fame are precisely the point.

Deafness/near deafness grants victimhood [especially in a country that can put a man on the Moon, ferhevinsake];

Victimhood grants the right to misbehave and get paid handsomely for it.

Besides, as I stated to another poster, you have no way of knowing whether it would even have been useful to have an ASL translator at the proceedings in April [or even in March ...  or even in February].  To claim error without credible information to give context to the claim of error is grossly arrogant.

[smac97]

On 4/18/2016 at 11:27 AM, 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:

Quote

Although I do not identify as a Mormon in the traditional sense, I take pride in my pioneer blood. Many of my ancestors were converted in England, traveled across the plains, and helped establish the church in Salt Lake as well as in LDS colonies outside of Utah. My ancestors made incredible sacrifices to live the gospel. I don’t want to turn my back on my heritage or the beautiful and powerful experiences I have enjoyed as a member of the church. In that sense, I am a Mormon even though I do not believe fundamental doctrines and do not consider myself a member of the LDS church. For those same reasons, I have not removed my name from church records. In some ways, I am holding on to a piece of a previous life.

 

I think it's shameful that he invokes the faith of his ancestors here, having gone to such great lengths to attack and criticize that faith and persuade others to reject or turn away from that faith, and to have done all these things for filthy lucre, no less.

Thanks,

-Smac

[flameburns623]

43 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.

He may well have asked for accomodation for both the February and March disciplinary hearings. Runnells was unavailable for either of the prior events due to personal matters. 

All that we really know is that on April 14th, Runnells posted to Facebook that his Stake President DECLINED his request. And indicated that if Runnells had questions or evidence and was afraid his Deafness would impede his ability to communicate, he should submit such matters in writing, at least three days prior to the hearing.

From the CES Letter website (my bolding):

 

Quote

 When Jeremy Runnells was 14, a General Authority blessed and promised him that his hearing would be naturally restored. This never happened. 

Jeremy lost half of his hearing six months ago. Even with cochlear implants, Jeremy is legally deaf. 

Now, he faces excommunication. He's asked to have a deaf interpreter. 

His stake president's response: 

"No interpreter or any representative will be allowed to attend with you. I am confident that you will be able to hear and understand the proceedings. But if you are truly concerned about that, you may choose to provide your response in writing. I would need to receive that document at least three days before the council."[/Quote]

 

Which telegraphs an enormous degree of insensitivity on the SP's part. Doubtless unintended, but a misstep nonetheless IMHO . And clearly not in keeping with Church Handbook guidelines, cited earlier,  which clearly seem to intend that an ASL interpreter be provided.

I agree with you that Runells may have had ulterior motives for wanting the 'Terp. I've said so repeatedly. Nevertheless, Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing have special limitations.

And I believe the stake should have had resources available which would have deflected Runnell's designs (if any), while showing itself compassionate about his difficulties. 

 

Edited April 18, 2016 by flameburns623

[USU78]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

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, 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.

Not really.  Not making it about you, though I am curious, as anyone would naturally be:  Your claim in the prior post that the Church is somehow hurting its public image by refusing additional accommodations after two [at least that we know about] postponements, which is of course not unique to you, is so very odd that I cannot help wonder if it's just a rhetorical device and not a crie de coeur for justice on behalf of the Church you value so greatly.  So I asked.  Big deal.  Nothing requires you to answer.

In any case, it's Runnells the media whore and the media whoremasters that are damaging [to the extent there is damage to] the Church's public image.  It ain't the Church seeking media attention.  And nothing credible that I've seen makes me think anybody made any kind of error.

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Not really.  Not making it about you, though I am curious, as anyone would naturally be:  Your claim in the prior post that the Church is somehow hurting its public image by refusing additional accommodations after two [at least that we know about] postponements, which is of course not unique to you, is so very odd that I cannot help wonder if it's just a rhetorical device and not a crie de coeur for justice on behalf of the Church you value so greatly.  So I asked.  Big deal.  Nothing requires you to answer.

In any case, it's Runnells the media whore and the media whoremasters that are damaging [to the extent there is damage to] the Church's public image.  It ain't the Church seeking media attention.  And nothing credible that I've seen makes me think anybody made any kind of error.

My references to the Church's image weren't about the Church's actions; rather they were about the interaction between your brand of defense and the image of the Church for the reader of your aggressiveness.

[USU78]

3 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

He may well have asked for accomodation for both the February and March disciplinary hearings. Runnells was unavailable for either of the prior events due to personal matters. 

All that we really know is that on April 14th, Runnells posted to Facebook that his Stake President DECLINED his request. And indicated that if Runnells had questions or evidence and was afraid his Deafness would impede his ability to communicate, he should submit such matters in writing, at least three days prior to the hearing.

Are you honestly selling the notion that Runnells would not have brought up saintly victimhood as the result of hearing impairment earlier if he didn't have another claimed reason for nonappearance?  Seriously?

Another issue:  I, for one, am curious at the reasons for giving precisely three days prior notice regarding the claim for needed accommodation:  precisely because the State of Utah requires a request for accommodation for Court hearings to be made at least 3 days prior to the hearing.  So  ...  who advised Runnells to give at least 3 days prior notice?  Or is this just another coincidence?

[USU78]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

My references to the Church's image weren't about the Church's actions; rather they were about the interaction between your brand of defense and the image of the Church for the reader of your aggressiveness.

I'm a knife-fighter and a hell-raiser when occasion warrants, and I ain't apologizing when the other fellow plays dirty.  You just don't like to see TRVTH when it's so much more comfortable to have mamby-pamby platitudes given in response to nastiness, isn't that about the size of it?

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

I'm a knife-fighter and a hell-raiser when occasion warrants, and I ain't apologizing when the other fellow plays dirty.  You just don't like to see TRVTH when it's so much more comfortable to have mamby-pamby platitudes given in response to nastiness, isn't that about the size of it?

Oh, good grief.  We're done here.

I've already said, there are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Runnells.  I don't believe this is one of them.  Pursuing it only harms your image, and the Church's, IMO.

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Oh, good grief.  We're done here.

I've already said, there are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Runnells.  I don't believe this is one of them.  Pursuing it only harms your image, and the Church's, IMO.

That's certainly your privilege.

[Jeanne]

44 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Unworthy of you, Jeanne.

Unworthy works both ways. 

[Storm Rider]

29 minutes ago, ttribe said:

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.

I am still waiting for someone that knows if Runnells uses an interpreter on a daily basis?  If not, does he use one every other day or once a week?  If you don't know that is fine; I am looking for someone who knows and has verified how often this man uses an interpreter.  Just curious.  

[Jeanne]

10 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I'm a knife-fighter and a hell-raiser when occasion warrants, and I ain't apologizing when the other fellow plays dirty.  You just don't like to see TRVTH when it's so much more comfortable to have mamby-pamby platitudes given in response to nastiness, isn't that about the size of it?

Unworthy of you USU78.

[bdouglas]

Any sympathy I might have had for Jeremy Runnells evaporated when I found out he was trying to raise money to do the CES letter full-time i.e. make attacking the church a full-time job. I know someone whom he met with to try to do this, to get funding. This happened some time ago. I'm surprised his exit from the church, whether by resignation or ex-ing, has taken so long.

 

 

[Jeanne]

33 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Money and fame are precisely the point.

Deafness/near deafness grants victimhood [especially in a country that can put a man on the Moon, ferhevinsake];

Victimhood grants the right to misbehave and get paid handsomely for it.

Besides, as I stated to another poster, you have no way of knowing whether it would even have been useful to have an ASL translator at the proceedings in April [or even in March ...  or even in February].  To claim error without credible information to give context to the claim of error is grossly arrogant.

Oh hey..I have just made millions at Walmart on my deafness.  Do you even know how much courage it takes for someone to get through a day and not hear a word??? I am not playing any victim here.  I live with it and doing fine.  But a request 3 days..or 2 days..whatever was denied.  It has nothing to do with anything but communication on what would affect the rest of his life.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Jeanne

[juliann]

15 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

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. 

I don't need to know. He has cochlear implants and is legally deaf.

How many children go to the temple, SR? The weekly meetings that all members can attend are the problem. I've volunteered to take care of a severely autistic child during classes so his parents could teach. What has been your experience with special needs?  My partially paralyzed father in a wheelchair lived with me for a few years. There was no place in the chapel for a wheelchair, he had to sit in the aisle or in the overflow section with movable chairs where he had even less chance of seeing or hearing. Have you had to deal with this week in and week out? Are there "ward workers" assigned to bend over backwards like there is in the temple? Why not? We have wonderful parking and access to buildings, just limited to no accommodations once they are inside.

I understand how difficult if not impossible fixing this would be. There does need to be a degree of knowledge of each individual need that would be hard to come by.  It is unfair to expect random teachers to successfully "mainstream" children with severe problems. But I have heard comments much like these here which leads me to wonder if our inability to accommodate is producing some unwilling and uncharitable hearts who then think people in need don't need to be provided equal access.

This seems like a fairly written blog that is not sympathetic with Runnells' activities and refusal to do research for his own "questions."   http://www.withoutend.org/learn-jeremy-runnells-thoughts-departure-church/

Quote

When I first came across this news, I will admit that I responded with skepticism, as I have seen Jeremy speak at public events, including a press conference that was hosted by John Dehlin, without any interpretive assistance. I was wrong to make that charge, as it was later confirmed that Jeremy’s hearing had, in fact, further declined since that event; and that an interpreter was also sought for his press conference, and while none could be secured in time, accommodations were made to assist Jeremy.

His "nobody will answer my questions!" is absurd. He could answer them himself. He just doesn't like the answers. But that doesn't mean he doesn't need an interpreter. For those who disagree, I suggest you go into a critical business meeting with earplugs. Don't insert them all the way into your canal, just a little bit so you can hear some of what is going on. You will be fine.

[ttribe]

5 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I am still waiting for someone that knows if Runnells uses an interpreter on a daily basis?  If not, does he use one every other day or once a week?  If you don't know that is fine; I am looking for someone who knows and has verified how often this man uses an interpreter.  Just curious.  

IIRC, his hearing has grown progressively worse over an extended period of time.  Also, IIRC, I believe it was only recently that it grew to the point of surpassing whatever legal definitions exist for deafness.  Your search for a sufficient history to satisfy your suspicions are likely muddied by the realities of his condition.

Last time I'm saying this - There are plenty of legitimate criticisms; focusing on his hearing and the interpreter issue as a means to discredit Runnells is a losing proposition and is just plain stupid, IMO.

[flameburns623]

5 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Are you honestly selling the notion that Runnells would not have brought up saintly victimhood as the result of hearing impairment earlier if he didn't have another claimed reason for nonappearance?  Seriously?

Another issue:  I, for one, am curious at the reasons for giving precisely three days prior notice regarding the claim for needed accommodation:  precisely because the State of Utah requires a request for accommodation for Court hearings to be made at least 3 days prior to the hearing.  So  ...  who advised Runnells to give at least 3 days prior notice?  Or is this just another coincidence?

Runnells announced his April 17 Bishops Court on Facebook on April 9th. He doesn't post daily on Facebook and the news might have been known to him earlier, but he went public about it nine days prior.

We don't know when Runnells requested an interpreter. For all we know, the initial request was made in February or March, prior to one or both of the earlier rescheduled hearings.

The Stake President's RESPONSE to Runnell's request was MADE PUBLIC on April 14. Again, for all we know, that response could have been in Runnell's possession earlier.

Clearly, however, Jeremy Runnells must have transmitted his request for a 'Terp sometime prior to April 14, since the SP declined said request on the 14th.

Not to make this about you nor to derail the thread: and I know it is not your intent, but I will repeat that the Deaf community consider expressions such as "hearing-impaired" and "disabled" to reflect Hearing person's ingrained bigotry against Deafness.

[USU78]

1 minute ago, flameburns623 said:

Not to make this about you nor to derail the thread: and I know it is not your intent, but I will repeat that the Deaf community consider expressions such as "hearing-impaired" and "disabled" to reflect Hearing person's ingrained bigotry against Deafness.

I don't care.

[Jeanne]

7 minutes ago, juliann said:

I don't need to know. He has cochlear implants and is legally deaf.

How many children go to the temple, SR? The weekly meetings that all members can attend are the problem. I've volunteered to take care of a severely autistic child during classes so his parents could teach. What has been your experience with special needs?  My partially paralyzed father in a wheelchair lived with me for a few years. There was no place in the chapel for a wheelchair, he had to sit in the aisle or in the overflow section with movable chairs where he had even less chance of seeing or hearing. Have you had to deal with this week in and week out? Are there "ward workers" assigned to bend over backwards like there is in the temple? Why not? We have wonderful parking and access to buildings, just limited to no accommodations once they are inside.

I understand how difficult if not impossible fixing this would be. There does need to be a degree of knowledge of each individual need that would be hard to come by.  It is unfair to expect random teachers to successfully "mainstream" children with severe problems. But I have heard comments much like these here which leads me to wonder if our inability to accommodate is producing some unwilling and uncharitable hearts who then think people in need don't need to be provided equal access.

This seems like a fairly written blog that is not sympathetic with Runnells' activities and refusal to do research for his own "questions."   http://www.withoutend.org/learn-jeremy-runnells-thoughts-departure-church/

His "nobody will answer my questions!" is absurd. He could answer them himself. He just doesn't like the answers. But that doesn't mean he doesn't need an interpreter. For those who disagree, I suggest you go into a critical business meeting with earplugs. Don't insert them all the way into your canal, just a little bit so you can hear some of what is going on. You will be fine.

Julian, you are a wonderful person to help others the way you do!! 

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

Runnells announced his April 17 Bishops Court on Facebook on April 9th. He doesn't post daily on Facebook and the news might have been known to him earlier, but he went public about it nine days prior.

We don't know when Runnells requested an interpreter. For all we know, the initial request was made in February or March, prior to one or both of the earlier rescheduled hearings.

The Stake President's RESPONSE to Runnell's request was MADE PUBLIC on April 14. Again, for all we know, that response could have been in Runnell's possession earlier.

Clearly, however, Jeremy Runnells must have transmitted his request for a 'Terp sometime prior to April 14, since the SP declined said request on the 14th.

[Snip inapposite assertion]

Once again:  the credibility of Runnells is, IMNSHO, highly suspect.  The SP's credibility remains intact.

When there is a clash between the word of him who has a plain financial or fame-seeking interest and the word of him who lacks both, you pretty much have to resolve the conflict in favor of the one without financial or fame-seeking interest.  Without more.  Is there more?  Is that more unimpeachable?

[salgare]

1 hour ago, flameburns623 said:

Various LDS apologists, treating his questions as being in good faith, responded. He rebuffed those responses as being "unofficial." (If I am not mistaken, one or more of those responding apologists post on this very board). He still was not, to our knowledge, disciplined.

In our discussion of the givens movement (MFB sealed the deal of this being a movement) I believe it was Kevin that noted different people have different gifts, highlighting that the FP/Q12 have administrative gifts/responsibilities.  I suppose others would be gifted to theology and history and called/ in a position to officially answer questions for the Church.  The jokes of "President Newsroom", undated/unsigned essays, silence in GC, books etc. show an ongoing tension with the FP/Q12 to address serious issues that are being brought up.  The who is driving the bus comic comes up when it appears apologist are the only ones trying to address the issues.  DBMormons recent questions focus on the same issue.  That is all we seem to get anymore, unofficial answers, information, direction etc. on the hard issues causes people to leave and be punished.

 

[flameburns623]

11 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I am still waiting for someone that knows if Runnells uses an interpreter on a daily basis?  If not, does he use one every other day or once a week?  If you don't know that is fine; I am looking for someone who knows and has verified how often this man uses an interpreter.  Just curious.  

Any way to find out if his ward uses an interpreter for the Deaf? Or if he goes to a ward FOR the Deaf? Those might reflect his need for an ASL interpreter in public settings.

But look: I went to testify in court for someone three years ago. The prosecutor apparently had dealt with Hard-of-Hearing folk before and tried to make me look foolish: he overplayed itcand got dessed-down a little by the judge. My friend's attorney apologized to me later, but was glad the prosecutor got the scolding, as it helped my friend.

Now, I would hope a Bishop's Court would be less adversarial than a court of law. But it is still a stressful experience and one in which you wouldn't want to make a mistake.

I could see wanting a 'Terp even if that is not something Runnells usually relies upon. Apparently, he is actually fluent in ASL to even make such a request:  that takes many many years to achieve

[USU78]

16 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Oh hey..I have just made millions at Walmart on my deafness.  Do you even know how much courage it takes for someone to get through a day and not hear a word??? I am not playing any victim here.  I live with it and doing fine.  But a request 3 days..or 2 days..whatever was denied.  It has nothing to do with anything but communication on what would affect the rest of his life.

My 29-1/2 year old handicapped adopted son, whose brain was pickled by his feckless birth mother's drug and alcohol abuse, has cost me health and treasure and countless hours of sorrow.

Oh  ...  wait a minute, it's ridiculous for me to claim victimhood by proxy or to besaint the handicapped in order to win an argument by making you feel sorry for me.

You, Jeanne, are just as capable of adult behavior and logical analysis as I.  Accordingly, for purposes of our conversation, I do not care that you do not hear well or at all.

Your good heart, I fear, betrays you, however:  "communication on what would affect the rest of his life" presupposes Runnells had any interest in remaining in the Church during the process of the recognition over the last 8-or-so months by the SP and his counselors and the Council that Runnells had already left the Church.  He did not.  He's made that clear.  And he's used the process to seek to damage the Church, which wins him no points in my ledger.  You seek to see such good in him as may still remain, and for this you are to be lauded.

But to blame the Church for his lot which results from his choices is not, IMNSHO, the best use of the best your heart has to offer.

[UtahTexan]

So?

[flameburns623]

1 minute ago, CountryBoy said:

So?

A needle, pulling thread.

Fa?