Healing the Divide

[Storm Rider]

I am not sure there is a way to specifically heal the divide - they are diametrically opposed.  The divide will remain and will always be there.  A simplistic concept is for everyone to agree to go their separate ways and wish each other luck.  However, this does not seem to be a feasible approach.  Unless a person has removed their name from the rolls of the Church they will invariably get a visit from someone in the Church and at times that knock on the door is more than unappreciated.  On the other hand, someone who leaves the church at times feel compelled to talk about their experience endlessly.  Then their talking will garner a response from a member of the church and we are off to the races.

 

 

[ALarson]

8 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. 

How about just trying to follow the handbook?  I'm surprised you're arguing against doing that.

I think the Stake President made an error in judgment.  We have not heard why he denied Runnell's request for an interpreter (that I know of).  So, I'm not going to comment on that one way or the other.

Maybe he hadn't read that portion of the handbook.

Unfortunately, because Runnell's request was denied, this has become something negative to focus on and again reflects badly on the church.  And, I agree that Runnells is using the denial to do this  But, he wouldn't have this opportunity if he'd been granted his request.  A request that to most people appears to be reasonable.

[Johnnie Cake]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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

What I am suggesting is that some topics transcend augment.  We will continue to have disagreements on a variety of LDS themed subjects...but surely...there are some things that we can find agreement on.  I tire of fighting over every single clod of dirt.  I'm not suggesting that MD&D be turn into a Kumbaya marshmallow roasting party with all of our arms locked together.  I just wish we didn't have to fight every point to infinity.  Everyone needs to concede a freaking point once in a while...

[TOmNossor]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

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. 

I think the Stake President should have offered to provide an interpreter if Jeremy asked for one.

I think Jeremy is a "bad actor" in that he has demonstrated a willingness to paint the church in the worst possible light even when truth and morality would dictate his picture should not be presented as he chooses to present it.

I think it quite possible that the Stake President did offer to provide an interpreter, but Jeremy insisted upon his own.

Jeremy, knowing the Stake President would not speak about this, then declared that the church did not allow him an interpreter.

I think it quite likely that an interpreter chosen by Jeremy would be chosen first and foremost for the damage that could be afflicted upon the church through truth and/or lies and only secondarily if at all for the purpose of providing interpretation.

 

My experience with the writing and speaking of Jeremy AND my experience with a dozen or so Stake Presidents 100% of whom I have found to be honest and better at living like Christ than I am, lead me to lean towards this POSSIBLE scenario.

Those who experience Jeremy as sincere and innocent as a lamb and/or view “courts of love” as scarcely better than medieval torture chambers might be firmly convicted in the opposite direction, but I suppose that is why we discuss such things.

 

I wrote a letter to John Delhin’s bishop in support of John more than 5 years ago.  I try to give folks the benefit of the doubt.  I have felt John has departed from good decorum since the time of my letter and I would not say the things I said then today.  This does not mean that John is a bad guy, I just think he began to try to not believe while claiming he was trying to believe.  My perception of Jeremy has not ever been as positive as my perception of John was long ago (and my perception of John today is more positive than of Jeremy today, but that probably has to do with the thoroughness of John’s research and the absence of thoroughness in my perception of Jeremy).  I am critical of the idea that Jeremy felt it was his place to write a letter to a CES director and get all his answers.  I think John followed a path that I respect more.

Charity, TOm  

[Johnnie Cake]

9 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. 

Scott I respect you and many of your views...but you're kind of embarrassing yourself right now...I don't know why the SP made the call he did...but irrespective of why Runnels made his request, who are we to dictate the needs of a deaf person...shouldn't that always be the choice of that person claiming the need?  And besides the request is reasonable irrespective of his "evil" motivations to be able to understand the whole proceedings 

[TOmNossor]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

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. 

I think the Stake President should have offered to provide an interpreter if Jeremy asked for one.

I think Jeremy is a "bad actor" in that he has demonstrated a willingness to paint the church in the worst possible light even when truth and morality would dictate his picture should not be presented as he chooses to present it.

 

I think it quite possible that the Stake President did offer to provide an interpreter, but Jeremy insisted upon his own.

 

Jeremy, knowing the Stake President would not speak about this, then declared that the church did not allow him an interpreter.

 

 

 

My experience with the writing and speaking of Jeremy AND my experience with a dozen or so Stake Presidents 100% of whom I have found to be honest and better at living like Christ than I am, lead me to lean towards this POSSIBLE scenario.

 

Those who experience Jeremy as sincere and innocent as a lamb and/or view “courts of love” as scarcely better than medieval torture chambers might be firmly convicted in the opposite direction, but I suppose that is why we discuss such things.

 

 

 

I wrote a letter to John Delhin’s bishop in support of John more than 5 years ago.  I try to give folks the benefit of the doubt.  I have felt John has departed from good decorum since the time of my letter and I would not say the things I said then today.  This does not mean that John is a bad guy, I just think he began to try to not believe while claiming he was trying to believe.  My perception of Jeremy has not ever been as positive as my perception of John was long ago (and my perception of John today is more positive than of Jeremy today, but that probably has to do with the thoroughness of John’s research and the absence of thoroughness in my perception of Jeremy).  I am critical of the idea that Jeremy felt it was his place to write a letter to a CES director and get all his answers.  I think John followed a path that I respect more.

 

Charity, TOm  

 

Edited April 19, 2016 by TOmNossor

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, TOmNossor said:

I think it quite possible that the Stake President did offer to provide an interpreter, but Jeremy insisted upon his own.

I agree with much in your post above, but I believe the SP responded in writing and denied the request.  (I'll try to find that.)

ETA:

Here's the quote from the Stake President:

"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."

I don't know if Runnells made the request in writing (that was denied above), but it does appear he made it at least three days before the council.

I think he did bring an interpreter to the council, but they were denied entrance (I don't know the details there, but maybe someone else does).  I imagine anyone given permission to be present would have had to have been cleared, so that may be why this happened (denied entrance).

.

Edited April 19, 2016 by ALarson

[SeekingUnderstanding]

11 hours 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. 

From Rush's mouth describing how sometimes they work and sometimes its hard:

 

Quote

I'm on the driver's side. My good buddy, whoever it is sitting on my right talking to me in a normal tone of voice as we're motoring along and the golf clubs are rattling and making noise and the wind is going through the microphone. I can't understand a single word. Two years later, same circumstance. The guy still doesn't speak up, doesn't aim for my left ear, just keeps talking.  It's just...  I don't know how to explain it. 

As I say, it's been fascinating to study it and try to understand it, and I don't complain about it. You know, I just I'll stop the cart and I'll turn my head and get three inches from them and say, "Could you say that again," and it'll happen after I do that. Five minutes later they'll try to talk to me with all the racket again, and I'll stop the cart, and I'll turn my head and get three inches.  They don't learn.  And that has been the fascinating thing about it. 

And this is not a criticism.  It's human nature.  It's just the way... I think it's all rooted in the fact that people simply can't relate to it, even people I've explained it to in great detail -- and I can't explain the acoustics.  Here's another example.  Sometimes at the front of the airplane, I can hear what is being said 20 feet behind me. With all the racket, I can hear it.  I cannot I understand what somebody directly across the aisle is saying.  If, in an example like this...

Oh, the racket from the galley and whoever is taking things out? I hear perfectly fine.  Somebody straight across the aisle just two feet away from me, I cannot hear 'em.  I can hear 'em; I can't understand what they're saying.  So on one instance like that, a good friend of mine is in the back of plane. He's a doubting Thomas. He's one of these guys that thinks that I am lying to him when I can't hear him. He thinks that I'm making it up to avoid conversation with him. 

So he happens to be back in the plane, and he cracks some joke about something, and five minutes later I say that was a funny joke.  See, you can hear!  You can hear.  You have selective hearing like everybody else.  I said, "No, no, no.  I'm not selecting what I hear at all.  I'm trying to tell you, I can't explain it.  When I tell you I can't hear you, I can't hear you.  I'm not making it up."  How many of you have somebody in your family hard-of-hearing and you think they're just not paying attention to you? 

 

[longview]

1 hour ago, TOmNossor said:

I think it quite possible that the Stake President did offer to provide an interpreter, but Jeremy insisted upon his own.

Jeremy, knowing the Stake President would not speak about this, then declared that the church did not allow him an interpreter.

Three questions:

1- what kind of interpreter did Jeremy need?   one to do sign language (such as ASL) or one that was very easy to lip-read (well "enunciated" movement of the lips)?  considering that he recently experienced declining hearing, I would think that he would want the lip-reader.  The lip-reader is useful in helping the hearing impaired to keep track of all the speakers around the High Council table.  And to show who the speaker is.  And to slow the proceedings down in order to relay the information in a comprehensible manner.

2- if the SP was willing to provide an interpreter (of either kind), why would Jeremy insist on having his own?  In my experience, pretty much ALL interpreters are at least fairy competent and easy to follow.  What would be the problem with having an interpreter that can be trusted by both sides?

3- what if Jeremy wanted a collaborator to make false testimony as to what transpired in the meeting?

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

From Rush's mouth describing how sometimes they work and sometimes its hard:

That's so interesting to read because this is exactly how it's been with my Dad's hearing.  He can also hear different pitches differently (in voices, music and so on).  Some voices he can hear quite well and others not at all (the doctors believe it is definitely a pitch issue for him). Also, it does depend where the person is standing (sometimes he hears us best when we're to the side and behind him, but other times he can't hear us from there). 

This also was posted about Runnells:

Quote

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

 

Edited April 19, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, JulieM said:

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?

I'm not in a position to say what harm there would or would not have been; therefore, I forebear from passing judgment on the stake president who is in a better position than I to evaluate the circumstances.

Edited to add: The handbook was made for man and not man for the handbook. Conceivably, there could be unique circumstances where the handbook ought to be overridden by sound judgment sustained by promptings from the Spirit.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

The battles some of us choose to wage is laughable sometimes.  Sometimes we fight tooth and nail for no to little reason.  Why anyone questions the need for an interpreter is just silly.  Why would anyone want to question that, at this stage?  If Jeremy is out for victimhood.  If he is as bad as many want to make him to be, then even questioning the need for an interpreter does nothing but aid his cause and make those so opposed to him look like...well, I won't even say.  The OP has it right.  It is absurd the lengths some go to to support their own pre-selected spot. 

[ttribe]

11 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. 

[sigh]  Why don't we just ask Juliann?  She does have a graduate degree in an applicable area:

 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, JulieM said:

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.

Be that as it may, it strikes me that in a controlled situation such as a disciplinary council, necessary accommodations could have been made short of having an interpreter present. For example, all participants could have been instructed not to speak unless recognized. And there could have been a directive that anyone speaking was to stand or give some other obvious indication that he or she was the one speaking. Absolute silence could have been enjoined upon all the participants in the room except for the one who was currently speaking. Now that I think of it, such conditions would have been necessary even with an interpreter present.

It seems to me that a disciplinary council is far more controlled and orderly than a press conference -- and I've been to numerous press conferences over the years.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Johnnie Cake]

15 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The battles some of us choose to wage is laughable sometimes.  Sometimes we fight tooth and nail for no to little reason.  Why anyone questions the need for an interpreter is just silly.  Why would anyone want to question that, at this stage?  If Jeremy is out for victimhood.  If he is as bad as many want to make him to be, then even questioning the need for an interpreter does nothing but aid his cause and make those so opposed to him look like...well, I won't even say.  The OP has it right.  It is absurd the lengths some go to to support their own pre-selected spot. 

It seemed the same with the recent BYU Rape situation...lines were drawn, everyone had turf to defend...but once BYU made the reasonable decision to review its present policy and agree to separate its Title IX from the Honor Code Department....yet even now no one stands up and says oh wait I was wrong to defend BYU...clearly there was a middle position.  Why couldn't reasonable people have seen this need and just agreed...why the need to defend every inch of ground...until there's no ground left to defend?

Edited April 19, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Scott Lloyd]

13 hours 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

 

13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

 

13 hours ago, ttribe said:

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

Perhaps I misspoke here.

Of course it's obvious there is a hearing disability. What I meant to say is that the matter at issue seems to be whether that disability warrants the presence of an interpreter during the proceedings.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

It seemed the same with the recent BYU Rape situation...lines were drawn, everyone had turf to defend...but once BYU made the reasonable decision to review its present policy and agree to separate its Title IX from the Honor Code Department....yet even now no one stands up and says oh wait I was wrong to defend BYU...clearly there was a middle position.  Why couldn't reasonable people have seen this need and just agreed...why the need to defend every inch of ground...until there's no ground left to defend?

Well there's something fascinating about the phenomenon.  I think I spot a handful on the first page of thread titles alone.  But if I made too much of a fuss about it, I'd be fighting a battle that meant very little too.  I guess, I need to make my assessments and move on. 

[Avatar4321]

it seems like the narrative is to make jeremy into a victim. That rubs me the wrong way. Especially since its his choices that brought him to this point.

there is only one source to heal divides. That is the atonement of Jesus Christ.I don't know that the divide can be bridged with those rejecting it

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Avatar4321 said:

it seems like the narrative is to make jeremy into a victim. That rubs me the wrong way. Especially since its his choices that brought him to this point.

there is only one source to heal divides. That is the atonement of Jesus Christ.I don't know that the divide can be bridged with those rejecting it

Tons of divides have been bridged by those who had no interest in the atonement of Christ and by those who outright rejected it.  That's a great thing about God He'll find ways to support those who seemingly oppose Him.  In reality when they who say they are opposed do good things, God seems willing to aid their cause just as much as He might be so willing to aid those who proclaim to be His best buddies. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Scott I respect you and many of your views...but you're kind of embarrassing yourself right now...I don't know why the SP made the call he did...but irrespective of why Runnels made his request, who are we to dictate the needs of a deaf person...shouldn't that always be the choice of that person claiming the need?  And besides the request is reasonable irrespective of his "evil" motivations to be able to understand the whole proceedings 

I thank you for your concern, but I assure you I don't feel in the least embarrassed -- nor do I agree I've said anything here for which I need be embarrassed.

What I have done -- and this thread is the only one where I've weighed in -- is to advocate the forebearing of making public judgements about the action and decision of the stake president when we can't know all the facts and circumstances and likely never will, as priesthood leaders have a strict obligation of confidentiality in proceedings such as this.

I stand by that.

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

...yet even now no one stands up and says oh wait I was wrong to defend BYU...

The thread was locked almost immediately, perhaps posters were silent out of respect for moderation.  That is why I have said nothing (I wasn't a defender btw).

[The Nehor]

15 hours 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

You could repent. That would heal the divide.  

[Jeanne]

11 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. 

One may be able to hear or read lips..but with a group of people, it takes great concentration.

[JulieM]

28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Be that as it may, it strikes me that in a controlled situation such as a disciplinary council, necessary accommodations could have been made short of having an interpreter present. For example, all participants could have been instructed not to speak unless recognized. And there could have been a directive that anyone speaking was to stand or give some other obvious indication that he or she was the one speaking. Absolute silence could have been enjoined upon all the participants in the room except for the one who was currently speaking. 

Wouldn't it just be easier to provide an interpreter?  

[stemelbow]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I thank you for your concern, but I assure you I don't feel in the least embarrassed -- nor do I agree I've said anything here for which I need be embarrassed.

What I have done -- and this thread is the only one where I've weighed in -- is to advocate the forebearing of making public judgements about the action and decision of the stake president when we can't know all the facts and circumstances and likely never will, as priesthood leaders have a strict obligation of confidentiality in proceedings such as this.

I stand by that.

Well, I think we get where you level of defensiveness comes from on this.  But the problem is, it's just silly.  No one knows what it's like for Jeremy without an interpreter, except Jeremy.  There are no possible scenarios that reasonably denies him an interpreter outside there not being one available.  But that wouldn't have been the SP's responsibility. 

The level of hypotheticals to argue against an interpreter is just absurd.  Even a SP can make mistakes, Scott.  Why so quick to battle about that which you know nothing about?