Healing the Divide

[Johnnie Cake]

I for some bizarre reason really enjoy participanting and being able to post on MD&D. I sincerely appreciate the mods for their patience and willingness to make this board a place where a variety of views can be shared and debated. But I often get frustrated when even some reasonable ground is fought over just because a believer or former believer made the point...yes at times we're all guilty. 

Case in point, in another post today we were debating whether Jeremy Runnels was intitled to an interpreter at his church court.  Jeremy is deaf.  His hearing has degenerated and while somewhat functional he still has difficulty hearing what others in close proximity to himself often say.  Having an interpreter resolves this problem. His stake president, for reasons known only to himself, refused Jeremy's request for the interpreter.  This was one of the reasons Jeremy decided to resign rather than face his accusers, he felt rightly or wrongly that he wasn't being delt a fair hand.

Fair enough...we can debate Jeremy's actions, his claims or the justifications behind his court...what I couldn't understand was why we were debating IF he needed an interpreter.  Really?  Surely we could agree on that can't we?

Dont some thing just transcend what divides us? Doesn't basic human decency demand some agreement between us on some things? If I say the sky is blue on a bright noon day, just because I'm a non believer I fully expect someone to argue against my point just because it is me who is making the point. Surely we can transcend some of what divides us

i have great respect for many members who post here despite our conflicting worldviews others, no so much, I just wish that on some things we could find more common ground after all when everything is said and done we're still all members of the same human family

 

thanks for reading

Edited April 19, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[6EQUJ5]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I for some bizarre reason really enjoy participanting and being able to post on MD&D. I sincerely appreciate the mods for their patience and willingness to make this board a place where a variety of views can be shared and debated. But I often get frustrated when even some reasonable ground is fought over just because a believer or former believer made the point...yes at times we're all guilty. 

Case in point, in another post today we were debating whether Jeremy Runnels was intitled to an interpreter at his church court.  Jeremy is deaf.  His hearing has degenerated and while somewhat functional he still has difficulty hearing what others in close proximity to himself often say.  Having an interpreter resolves this problem. His stake president, for reasons known only to himself, refused Jeremy's request for the interpreter.  This was one of the reasons Jeremy decided to resign rather than face his accusers, he felt rightly or wrongly that he wasn't being delt a fair hand.

Fair enough...we can debate Jeremy's actions, his claims or the justifications behind his court...what I couldn't understand was why we were debating IF he needed an interpreter.  Really?  Surely we could agree on that can't we?

Dont some thing just transcend what divides us? Doesn't basic human decency demand some agreement between us on some things? If I say the sky is blue on a bright noon day, just because I'm a non believer I fully expect someone to argue against my point just because it is me who is making the point. Surely we can transcend some of what divides us

i have great respect for many members who post here despite our conflicting worldviews others, no so much, I just wish that on some things we could find more common ground after all when everything is said and done we're still all members of the same human family

 

thanks for reading

Brother Cake,

I appreciate the kindness that motivated your OP (i assume..).  I agree that there are things that should never cause us to fight and argue.  But I do not think this is one of those cases.  I'm not saying being mean or cruel is justified.  It isn't.  And I've even said things about Jeremy that I now regret. 

You asked:

Quote

Fair enough...we can debate Jeremy's actions, his claims or the justifications behind his court...what I couldn't understand was why we were debating IF he needed an interpreter.  Really?  Surely we could agree on that can't we?

No.  I don't think we must agree and let me give you a few reasons why:

1.  Jeremy was interviewed in public just a few weeks ago without an interpreter

2.  Jeremy has been seen at Sunstone and in large loud gatherings after Sunstone without an interpreter

3.  Jeremy immediately exploited his own disability for use as propaganda against the Church

After some thought I came to the conclusion that yes, the SP should have simply accommodated the request rather than fall into what was most likely a trap set by Jeremy. Jeremy is a known and outspoken anti-Mormon who is faking "sincere doubt" to ask for donations and become John Dehlin 2.0. 

If you were the SP and in all your interactions had never seen Jeremy use an interpreter and just a few weeks ago he was interviewed in public and on video without an interpreter wouldn't you be a little suspicious?  Brother Cake, people do not debate this point simply because Jeremy is a non-believer and critic.  They do it because Jeremy has shown himself to be a dishonest charlatan and master of propaganda.

Q

[Johnnie Cake]

9 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Brother Cake,

I appreciate the kindness that motivated your OP (i assume..).  I agree that there are things that should never cause us to fight and argue.  But I do not think this is one of those cases.  I'm not saying being mean or cruel is justified.  It isn't.  And I've even said things about Jeremy that I now regret. 

You asked:

No.  I don't think we must agree and let me give you a few reasons why:

1.  Jeremy was interviewed in public just a few weeks ago without an interpreter

2.  Jeremy has been seen at Sunstone and in large loud gatherings after Sunstone without an interpreter

3.  Jeremy immediately exploited his own disability for use as propaganda against the Church

After some thought I came to the conclusion that yes, the SP should have simply accommodated the request rather than fall into what was most likely a trap set by Jeremy. Jeremy is a known and outspoken anti-Mormon who is faking "sincere doubt" to ask for donations and become John Dehlin 2.0. 

If you were the SP and in all your interactions had never seen Jeremy use an interpreter and just a few weeks ago he was interviewed in public and on video without an interpreter wouldn't you be a little suspicious?  Brother Cake, people do not debate this point simply because Jeremy is a non-believer and critic.  They do it because Jeremy has shown himself to be a dishonest charlatan and master of propaganda.

Q

I can't speak to the SP motivations but as to me, I would have allowed a obviously hearing disabled person an interpreter had it been my call...just as I would allow someone  who spoke English as a second language an interpreter in their primary language had they requested it.  It wouldn't/ shouldn't be up to the SP to dictate what Jeremy's needs were particularly when he said he needed one in order to clearly understand the proceedings...it just seems like a reasonable request

 

PS: kinda like Bro Cake

Edited April 19, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[6EQUJ5]

8 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I can't speak to the SP motivations but as to me, I would have allowed a obviously hearing disabled person an interpreter had it been my call...just as I would allow someone  who spoke English as a second language an interpreter in their primary language had they requested it.  It wouldn't/ shouldn't be up to the SP to dictate what Jeremy's needs were particularly when he said he needed one in order to clearly understand the proceedings...it just seems like a reasonable request

Dear Brother Cake :),

We agree.  I think that given the circumstances it would have been the right move to agree to the request.  All I'm saying is that it isn't a slam dunk.  Given the circumstances I don't think we can criticize the skepticism of the SP even if we think it just would have been better for all involved to comply.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I for some bizarre reason really enjoy participanting and being able to post on MD&D. I sincerely appreciate the mods for their patience and willingness to make this board a place where a variety of views can be shared and debated. But I often get frustrated when even some reasonable ground is fought over just because a believer or former believer made the point...yes at times we're all guilty. 

Case in point, in another post today we were debating whether Jeremy Runnels was intitled to an interpreter at his church court.  Jeremy is deaf.  His hearing has degenerated and while somewhat functional he still has difficulty hearing what others in close proximity to himself often say.  Having an interpreter resolves this problem. His stake president, for reasons known only to himself, refused Jeremy's request for the interpreter.  This was one of the reasons Jeremy decided to resign rather than face his accusers, he felt rightly or wrongly that he wasn't being delt a fair hand.

Fair enough...we can debate Jeremy's actions, his claims or the justifications behind his court...what I couldn't understand was why we were debating IF he needed an interpreter.  Really?  Surely we could agree on that can't we?

Dont some thing just transcend what divides us? Doesn't basic human decency demand some agreement between us on some things? If I say the sky is blue on a bright noon day, just because I'm a non believer I fully expect someone to argue against my point just because it is me who is making the point. Surely we can transcend some of what divides us

i have great respect for many members who post here despite our conflicting worldviews others, no so much, I just wish that on some things we could find more common ground after all when everything is said and done we're still all members of the same human family

 

thanks for reading

Ok with me, but on the other hand a lot of the points critics bring up seem to be repetitive.  They seem to be doing exactly what you here condemn

As an example, and I am not sure if you have done this- so just as an example- we have been over history 900 times it seems like.  If Joseph was a rogue, it either is important or it is not- it is not a question of being a rogue in one area is acceptable but not in others.  Yet it seems there is one debate over his polygamy and then another about his money-digging and another about .......   and on it goes.  All the same issue.  Nine million repeated arguments discussing the same things

Then we have BOM history.  Either relevant or not.  Then we have bible history.  Either relevant or not.  Then we have the Book of Abraham as a "translation" then we have the BOM as a "translation"  and on it goes discussing the same points.

Again I have not been following each of your threads and checking off boxes about what they are about.  But overall that is my impression of critics in general.

It seems most critics have their noses buried in the sand, griping about each grain, instead of seeing the overall picture and discussing what is important.  So it fosters this negativity where each line, each word, each phrase, gets criticized and repeated over and over.

I agree we definitely need a truce or something.

But then a newbie arrives - thinking he has discovered something new, and to us it's argument number 475.3 with the xyz variation, and like horses ready for the race, the starting gun goes off and we are headed around the same track all over again.

I am as guilty as anyone but it is hard to see a solution.

It becomes a matter of reflexes.   The light turns green and we hit the gas.

Edited- I did not mean to make this personal- this is about all critics not you personally

Edited April 19, 2016 by mfbukowski

[6EQUJ5]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Ok with me, but on the other hand a lot of the points critics bring up seem to be repetitive.  They seem to be doing exactly what you here condemn

As an example, and I am not sure if you have done this- so just as an example- we have been over history 900 times it seems like.  If Joseph was a rogue, it either is important or it is not- it is not a question of being a rogue in one area is acceptable but not in others.  Yet it seems there is one debate over his polygamy and then another about his money-digging and another about .......   and on it goes.  All the same issue.  Nine million repeated arguments discussing the same things

Then we have BOM history.  Either relevant or not.  Then we have bible history.  Either relevant or not.  Then we have the Book of Abraham as a "translation" then we have the BOM as a "translation"  and on it goes discussing the same points.

Again I have not been following each of your threads and checking off boxes about what they are about.  But overall that is my impression of critics in general.

It seems most critics have their noses buried in the sand, griping about each grain, instead of seeing the overall picture and discussing what is important.  So it fosters this negativity where each line, each word, each phrase, gets criticized and repeated over and over.

I agree we definitely need a truce or something.

But then a newbie arrives - thinking he has discovered something new, and to us it's argument number 475.3 with the xyz variation, and like horses ready for the race, the starting gun goes off and we are headed around the same track all over again.

I am as guilty as anyone but it is hard to see a solution.

It becomes a matter of reflexes.   The light turns green and we hit the gas.

Edited- I did not mean to make this personal- this is about all critics not you personally

Best description of a message or discussion board I've seen.

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I can't speak to the SP motivations but as to me, I would have allowed a obviously hearing disabled person an interpreter had it been my call...just as I would allow someone  who spoke English as a second language an interpreter in their primary language had they requested it.  It wouldn't/ shouldn't be up to the SP to dictate what Jeremy's needs were particularly when he said he needed one in order to clearly understand the proceedings...it just seems like a reasonable request

 

PS: kinda like Bro Cake

"obviously hearing-disabled" seems to be the assumption in dispute here. 

[Johnnie Cake]

24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Ok with me, but on the other hand a lot of the points critics bring up seem to be repetitive.  They seem to be doing exactly what you here condemn 

I agree

Quote

As an example, and I am not sure if you have done this- so just as an example- we have been over history 900 times it seems like.  If Joseph was a rogue, it either is important or it is not- it is not a question of being a rogue in one area is acceptable but not in others.  Yet it seems there is one debate over his polygamy and then another about his money-digging and another about .......   and on it goes.  All the same issue.  Nine million repeated arguments discussing the same things

No question, Joseph was a very complex man

Quote

Then we have BOM history.  Either relevant or not.  Then we have bible history.  Either relevant or not.  Then we have the Book of Abraham as a "translation" then we have the BOM as a "translation"  and on it goes discussing the same points.

Doesn't each subject deserve its own thread a hundred fold?  It's no fun kicking a live horse.

Quote

Again I have not been following each of your threads and checking off boxes about what they are about.  But overall that is my impression of critics in general.

It seems most critics have their noses buried in the sand, griping about each grain, instead of seeing the overall picture and discussing what is important.  

Funny, but critics say the same thing about believers

Quote

So it fosters this negativity where each line, each word, each phrase, gets criticized and repeated over and over.

And sometimes I just wish we could stop the arguing and fighting point upon point infinitely. 

Quote

I agree we definitely need a truce or something.

But then a newbie arrives - thinking he has discovered something new, and to us it's argument number 475.3 with the xyz variation, and like horses ready for the race, the starting gun goes off and we are headed around the same track all over again.

Agreed it gets old

Quote

I am as guilty as anyone but it is hard to see a solution.

It becomes a matter of reflexes.   The light turns green and we hit the gas.

 

Quote

Edited- I did not mean to make this personal- this is about all critics not you personally

No worries mate, I can take it...just getting back after a 15 day mod banishment 

Edited April 19, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[ttribe]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

"obviously hearing-disabled" seems to be the assumption in dispute here. 

He has cochlear implants.  Do you think he got them just for the fun it?

[JulieM]

I don't agree with a lot of what Jeremy Runnells has done, but I do believe he has problems with his  hearing.  It's a real thing that he deals with.  He requested an interpreter and I wish he'd been allowed to have one:

By the SP denying his request, it's now become part of the discussion when it wouldn't have been otherwise (in my opinion).

Anyone with any human compassion and decency can see that he has hearing problems and should have been provided with an interpreter since he asked for one.  

I have no idea why his request was denied because it's even in the church handbook that one should be provided if it's requested.  I realize nothing was done on purpose, but hindsight is 20/20 and I'm sure the SP is a good man and may be wishing he'd ok'd this for Jeremy.

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, ttribe said:

He has cochlear implants.  Do you think he got them just for the fun it?

Rush Limbaugh, I understand, has cochlear implants. Does he ordinarily use interpreters? 

I'm asking, because I don't know. I heard some years ago that the implants had made a dramatic difference for him. 

And what I'm reading here is that Runnels has gotten by on prior occasions without interpretation. 

So pardon, but it does not seem so obvious to me. And saying he has cochlear implants does not suddenly make the matter crystal clear. 

[JulieM]

Runnells also had surgery today to help his hearing, correct?

 

Edited April 19, 2016 by JulieM

[ttribe]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Rush Limbaugh, I understand, has cochlear implants. Does he ordinarily use interpreters? 

I'm asking, because I don't know. I heard some years ago that the implants had made a dramatic difference for him. 

And what I'm reading here is that Runnels has gotten by on prior occasions without interpretation. 

So pardon, but it does not seem so obvious to me. And saying he has cochlear implants does not suddenly make the matter crystal clear. 

The more people in a room, along with attendant noise, the less effective they become.

But, maybe you'll believe Juliann if you won't believe me:

 

[mfbukowski]

38 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I agree

No question, Joseph was a very complex man

Doesn't each subject deserve its own thread a hundred fold?  It's no fun kicking a live horse.

Funny, but critics say the same thing about believers

And sometimes I just wish we could stop the arguing and fighting point upon point infinitely. 

Agreed it gets old

 

No worries mate, I can take it...just getting back after a 15 day mod banishment 

OK- but how does your reply reflect your concerns in the OP?

How does that post move toward healing the divide?  Many criticisms because "Joseph was complex"- meaning there are therefore multiple reasons TO criticize him.

Each subject deserves a hundred threads- therefore healing nothing-  NO FUN kicking a live horse??  Really?  So much for healing.

Critics say the same things about believers- so healing is not possible because of apologists

The you "Wish you could stop the arguing" while continuing it, point for point for point.

Oh well.\

So much for that idea

Edited April 19, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

55 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Best description of a message or discussion board I've seen.

Wow!  Thanks

[JulieM]

52 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

"obviously hearing-disabled" seems to be the assumption in dispute here. 

Maybe we should just err on the side of compassion and decency.  Runnells definitely has some problems with his ears and hearing.  Why not allow an interpreter?  What harm would it have caused?

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I can't speak to the SP motivations but as to me, I would have allowed a obviously hearing disabled person an interpreter had it been my call...just as I would allow someone  who spoke English as a second language an interpreter in their primary language had they requested it.  It wouldn't/ shouldn't be up to the SP to dictate what Jeremy's needs were particularly when he said he needed one in order to clearly understand the proceedings...it just seems like a reasonable request

PS: kinda like Bro Cake

I've seen plenty of bad actors in my time, and just to be certain that Runnels was not making an insincere request, I would have required a note and a conversation with a professional, licensed audiologist.  Doctors' notes are not at all unusual in such cases, and civil and criminal courts might also require some sort of proof that the extra care is justified.  We might also recommend a set of earphones provided by that audiologist.  I don't see a real problem, except that the onus is on Runnels to provide proof of need.  He seems to have been grandstanding and playing his stake president for a fool.  When his trick didn't work, naturally he resigned.

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Maybe we should just err on the side of compassion and decency.  Runnells definitely has some problems with his ears and hearing.  Why not allow an interpreter?  What harm would it have caused?

 

 

So instead we err on the side of publicly judging and pillorying the stake president, who presumably is better acquainted with the circumstances than anyone commenting here? That doesn't strike me as a very appealing alternative. 

[Scott Lloyd]

54 minutes ago, ttribe said:

The more people in a room, along with attendant noise, the less effective they become.

But, maybe you'll believe Juliann if you won't believe me:

 

I can see how that might be the case if there were apt to be two or more people constantly talking at once or where there was a cacophony of ambient noise. I don't envision a disciplinary council being in any way like that. I see it as a model of orderliness and decorum. I have no reason to assume otherwise. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Maybe we should just err on the side of compassion and decency.  Runnells definitely has some problems with his ears and hearing.  Why not allow an interpreter?  What harm would it have caused?

 

 

It is possible that the Stake President did not know of an interpreter. It is possible Runnels knew this and asked so he could crow about this. It is possible Runnels asked or demanded his choice of interpreter who was unacceptable to the Stake President for any number of reasons. I have no idea if these are true or not. The stake president is under obligation not to share and I trust Runnels as much as I trust a child with five dollars in a candy store.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I've seen plenty of bad actors in my time, and just to be certain that Runnels was not making an insincere request, I would have required a note and a conversation with a professional, licensed audiologist.  Doctors' notes are not at all unusual in such cases, and civil and criminal courts might also require some sort of proof that the extra care is justified.  We might also recommend a set of earphones provided by that audiologist.  I don't see a real problem, except that the onus is on Runnels to provide proof of need.  He seems to have been grandstanding and playing his stake president for a fool.  When his trick didn't work, naturally he resigned.

I am really trying to understand your position on this. Can you explain why it would be bad to have an interpreter present even if he was totally faking being deaf?  With something as serious as excommunication at stake, I would think the church would bend over backwards to make the person feel like he had been treated fairly. Isn't the end goal to have the person see goodness in the church and want to work their way back?  It also seems that absolute clarity would be the goal. Explaining the down side of having someone there to help clarify would really help me understand your position. 

[sjdawg]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I can see how that might be the case if there were apt to be two or more people constantly talking at once or where there was a cacophony of ambient noise. I don't envision a disciplinary council being in any way like that. I see it as a model of orderliness and decorum. I have no reason to assume otherwise. 

Seems legit.  I just looked him up on Facebook and it appears he had surgery just yesterday or today.  Seems reasonably to request some assistance for the hearing  (Perhaps the only thing Runnels and I agree on with how this entire episode has been handled)

[JulieM]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So instead we err on the side of publicly judging and pillorying the stake president, who presumably is better acquainted with the circumstances than anyone commenting here? That doesn't strike me as a very appealing alternative. 

That would not have happened if the SP had followed the church handbook.

(And, I've not judged the SP or criticized him.  I do think the request should have been approved but also said that we don't know why it wasn't.)

You didn't answer my question I asked you.  What harm would it have caused to have allowed Runnels an interpreter?

Edited April 19, 2016 by JulieM

[flameburns623]

6 hours ago, JulieM said:

Maybe we should just err on the side of compassion and decency.  Runnells definitely has some problems with his ears and hearing.  Why not allow an interpreter?  What harm would it have caused?

 

 

We have been discussing this at enormous length over on thr "Jeremy Runnells Excommunicated" thread.

I have suggested that denying Runnells a 'Terp has the potential to hurt the Church with the Deaf community-- which is already 90% unchurched; sees churches generally with suspicion for past records of exploitation, paternalism, and insensitivity; and is not especially forgiving of slights.

Historically, Hearing communities have actually attenpted to suppress ASL, sometimes using cruel punishments. "Hearings" (slang) refuse to learn even rudimentary ASL. The Hearing are perceived to have often tolerated bullying, discrimination, and violence against Deaf. The Deaf feel they often have less access to justice if accused of crimes. They are referred to as "impaired" or "handicapped", even though many Deaf resent the implication that they are somehow "broken' or 'flawed'. These and numerous other issues make up that form of bigotry known among the Deaf as "Audism".

I don't know if denying Runnells will have a widespread or long ladting impact on relations within the Deaf community. Who knows what sort of cachet he has with that community? But many or most Stakes have a ministry to the Deaf; and if not, private, licensed professional interpreters are available (at a fee, of course). 

If nothing else, the Stake President's statement denying the 'Terp could have been worded in a manner sensitive to the wider public who could reasonably have been expected to learn pf it. Runnells is generally known as a media hound.

[JulieM]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I can see how that might be the case if there were apt to be two or more people constantly talking at once or where there was a cacophony of ambient noise. I don't envision a disciplinary council being in any way like that. I see it as a model of orderliness and decorum. I have no reason to assume otherwise. 

This has been discussed and explained several times over on the other thread (by some who have hearing problems themselves).  Group situations are much more difficult for them to hear in and to follow who is speaking (or know who to look at when there are many in the room who may be speaking even at different times). It's very different than speaking solely to one person who they know to focus on.

Edited April 19, 2016 by JulieM