Healing the Divide

[Mystery Meat]

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

Now you know how many of us active TBM's feel when we read a lot of the criticisms on here about the Church/Joseph Smith.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

Now you know how many of us active TBM's feel when we read a lot of the criticisms on here about the Church/Joseph Smith.

It'd be a bad assumption to think Johnny Cake or anyone else does not know what it's like to read unfair criticisms.  SUrely there are plenty of unfair criticisms leveled at the Church and it's leader, even unfair ones found on this board. 

[Scott Lloyd]

32 minutes ago, JulieM said:

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

I've already said that it seems to me it would be necessary to do all those things even with an interpreter present. An interpreter cannot function with two or more people talking at once, for example.

And no, I don't think providing an interpreter would necessarily be easier than imposing these accommodations. These are stake leaders we are talking about; they are capable of being orderly.

 

[RevTestament]

5 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 am not convinced the public knows the full story here. Does the handbook say the SP should allow a hand-picked interpreter? Or that the church should provide one if requested? For the Church to do that, a request must be received beforehand. If so the SP would have been apprised of Jeremy's request beforehand, and probably who Jeremy wanted to be his interpreter. I believe the problem here is that Jeremy has shown himself to be on an apostate route, and not beyond manipulating the situation for publicity on his quest to spread his "Letter." I would be all for the Church providing an interpreter if one had been requested, but it appears Jeremy just showed up with a stranger whom he wanted admitted to his hearing. If this is the case we shouldn't rush to judge the SP harshly, and there would be another reason in my mind for questioning Jeremy's motives since he didn't make a request beforehand apparently to follow protocol. The Church makes these hearings private for various reasons, and having some wanna-be reporter come in masquerading as an interpreter would be a possible concern given Jeremy's proclivities for publicity. Perhaps another solution would be to postpone the hearing once again for the church to find an interpreter, although that would be an inconvenience to all involved.

If Jeremy resigned, when he didn't want to, I suppose he can always seek membership again, but I think he will need to stop his publication activities.

[Scott Lloyd]

48 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well, I think we get where you level of defensiveness comes from on this. 

A quick, shorthand way of shutting somebody down in a discussion is to accuse them of being "defensive." For many people, that is the ultimate put-down.

Shall I now call you "defensive" because you don't like what I've said here? See, it works both ways. And ultimately, it's not very productive regardless of which direction it goes.
 

Quote

 

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? 

 

That's just the point. There could have been any number of good reasons, of which you and I will never be privy because of the obligation of confidentiality. In the absence of such knowledge, it is just as bad to accuse the stake president of ill will or bad faith or poor judgment as it is to presume to know "what it's like for Jeremy without an interpreter."

Edited April 19, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Storm Rider]

Okay, SP provides an interpreter.  Now, all is good.  Is there anyone that thinks the outcome would have been different?  Just one?  Come on all you positive types, raise your hand, speak up.  No one.  So we have argued about this rather ridiculous situation ad nauseaum for an event where there was no difference in outcome.  The fellow had long since left the church.  Good for him and may he be joyful in his new endeavors as a non-Mormon. 

I don't know the fellow; have never read the CES letter; and find the topic when centered on this fellow less than interesting.  In an effort to find some redeeming quality - has he joined another Church?  Did he start his own?  Does he still believe in God and Jesus Christ?  

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, JulieM said:

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

The cost might have been a consideration.  I saw with google a range from about $30-150 per hour, I know often 2hr minimum is required.  Still I doubt that would be a deciding factor.  Perhaps the stake president was aware of the notoriety/publicizing that has been attached to the whole saga by Runnells and felt that it was inappropriate to place a person in the possible position of having their name being attached to it.  

[Thinking]

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

It may be new to the newbie.

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

 but it appears Jeremy just showed up with a stranger whom he wanted admitted to his hearing. If this is the case we shouldn't rush to judge the SP harshly, and there would be another reason in my mind for questioning Jeremy's motives since he didn't make a request beforehand apparently to follow protocol. 

Actually he did requested an interpreter several days before the council.  If he statedhe was going to bring his own (I can't remember the phrasing), the SP could have countered if concerned for privacy was an issue with the Church providing one.

[consiglieri]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

A quick, shorthand way of shutting somebody down in a discussion is to accuse them of being "defensive."

Or by telling them they are not asking questions in good faith . . .

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Okay, SP provides an interpreter.  Now, all is good.  Is there anyone that thinks the outcome would have been different?  Just one?  Come on all you positive types, raise your hand, speak up.  No one.  So we have argued about this rather ridiculous situation ad nauseaum for an event where there was no difference in outcome.  The fellow had long since left the church.  Good for him and may he be joyful in his new endeavors as a non-Mormon. 

I don't know the fellow; have never read the CES letter; and find the topic when centered on this fellow less than interesting.  In an effort to find some redeeming quality - has he joined another Church?  Did he start his own?  Does he still believe in God and Jesus Christ?  

There are two separate issues here in the eyes of those who see it as appropriate for an interpreter to be present, the apostasy and the request for an interpreter to be present.

It could have been a baptismal interview for all I care.  I just think it should be SOP that if given a few days notice, the Church should provide an interpreter if at all possible for any church event, whether Deaf, Spanish, Russian (as we attempted to do for visiting teaching at one time) or whatever language is needed.  If it is to be a significant ongoing expense, than a doctor or other appropriate professional's confirmation might be in order to know what level of need and how best to fill it.  

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, Thinking said:

It may be new to the newbie.

Of course

But for us it is lesson 1 all over again and we can answer it without thought.  The newbie becomes (at least for me) number 735. 

This is about healing.  I find it hard to heal number 735, to see her as a human being and not just another critic.  I thought that was what the OP was about, but now it seems to be about nothing at all.

I suppose I have been here too long.

 

[Gray]

20 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Okay, SP provides an interpreter.  Now, all is good.  Is there anyone that thinks the outcome would have been different?  Just one?  Come on all you positive types, raise your hand, speak up.  No one.  So we have argued about this rather ridiculous situation ad nauseaum for an event where there was no difference in outcome.  The fellow had long since left the church.  Good for him and may he be joyful in his new endeavors as a non-Mormon. 

I don't know the fellow; have never read the CES letter; and find the topic when centered on this fellow less than interesting.  In an effort to find some redeeming quality - has he joined another Church?  Did he start his own?  Does he still believe in God and Jesus Christ?  

If an interpreter had been provided, a small bruise on the church's reputation would have been avoided. 

[Johnnie Cake]

This thread has become a caricature of itself and its intended purpose...I used the debate over the hearing impaired interpreter as an example of how we all behave in defending our respective turfs...so what happens...we all begin to defend our respective turfs in this thread in stead of finding ways to simple state that we were wrong  when doing so would be appropriate... instead of continuing the fight to defend your turf.   

Sometimes simply admitting that you were wrong is the right thing to do and will go along way to bridge the divide...

Edited April 19, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, Gray said:

If an interpreter had been provided, a small bruise on the church's reputation would have been avoided. 

Since one was not requested, then they should have had one in German, Chinese, Arabic, French, Italian-  and what other languages would you like to avoid that small bruise that would be only visible to critics anyway?

If one is not requested, there should be interpreters in all languages available to avoid bad press in case one might be needed in ancient Hebrew to decide a point of doctrine?  One for all possible contingencies anyway?

Edited April 19, 2016 by mfbukowski

[ttribe]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Since one was not requested, then they should have had one in German, Chinese, Arabic, French, Italian-  and what other languages would you like to avoid that small bruise that would be only visible to critics anyway?

If one is not requested, there should be interpreters in all languages available to avoid bad press in case one might be needed in ancient Hebrew to decide a point of doctrine?  One for all possible contingencies anyway?

One WAS requested, but the request was refused..  You need to keep up before you comment.

Edited April 19, 2016 by ttribe

[stemelbow]

55 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

A quick, shorthand way of shutting somebody down in a discussion is to accuse them of being "defensive." For many people, that is the ultimate put-down.

Shall I now call you "defensive" because you don't like what I've said here? See, it works both ways. And ultimately, it's not very productive regardless of which direction it goes.

Well, no offense intended.  I read it as being overly defensive, but I get your point.

55 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

That's just the point. There could have been any number of good reasons, of which you and I will never be privy because of the obligation of confidentiality. In the absence of such knowledge, it is just as bad to accuse the stake president of ill will or bad faith or poor judgment as it is to presume to know "what it's like for Jeremy without an interpreter."

I don't know one good reason, other than, as I said, there is no interpreter available.  So your any number of good reasons is a point of disagreement, I guess, that we might not be able to resolve. 

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Since one was not requested, then they should have had one in German, Chinese, Arabic, French, Italian-  and what other languages would you like to avoid that small bruise that would be only visible to critics anyway?

If one is not requested, there should be interpreters in all languages available to avoid bad press in case one might be needed in ancient Hebrew to decide a point of doctrine?  One for all possible contingencies anyway?

One should always have all possible contingencies accounted for, yes

Maybe this isn't as visible as I think it is. But it is a tar baby that some people can't resist swinging at. 

[mfbukowski]

39 minutes ago, ttribe said:

One WAS requested, but the request was refused..  You need to keep up before you comment.

OOPS, I was convinced the argument was that one should have been called, though none was requested.

You are right- for me this is thread 47 on topic 287.3

I thought it was topic 287.4  Sorry.

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2010/03/31/on-being-a-student-therapist-facebook-and-process-commentary/

Edited April 19, 2016 by mfbukowski
added link

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

There are two separate issues here in the eyes of those who see it as appropriate for an interpreter to be present, the apostasy and the request for an interpreter to be present.

It could have been a baptismal interview for all I care.  I just think it should be SOP that if given a few days notice, the Church should provide an interpreter if at all possible for any church event, whether Deaf, Spanish, Russian (as we attempted to do for visiting teaching at one time) or whatever language is needed.  If it is to be a significant ongoing expense, than a doctor or other appropriate professional's confirmation might be in order to know what level of need and how best to fill it.  

Calm, under almost every normal circumstance I would not disagree with you.  However, for some reason I just have this feeling that Runnell's behavior and interaction with his priesthood leaders has been less than in the spirit of fellowship, respect, and love.  

When things may have been more cantankerous than normal, I feel like I should respect the local priesthood leaders and their intimate knowledge of JR.  None of knows the true reason for the JR's request.  There has been no evidence of JR's need for such an individual prior to this date or in any meetings with the local leaders or with anyone else under the sun.  Lastly, JR chose his path months ago and his excommunication or his resignation was already a fait accompli.  

If there is a problem, imho, it is that the Church waits so very long before excommunicating some of these individuals.  The longer they take the more these people like to grandstand, create propaganda, etc.  It would seem advisable that the minute someone takes their "cause" to the media, then they should be strongly shown the door.  Allow the Excommunication to be an invitation to repent or to move on with their lives. 

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Storm Rider said:

 

When things may have been more cantankerous than normal, I feel like I should respect the local priesthood leaders and their intimate knowledge of JR.  None of knows the true reason for the JR's request.  There has been no evidence of JR's need for such an individual prior to this date or in any meetings with the local leaders or with anyone else under the sun.  Lastly, JR chose his path months ago and his excommunication or his resignation was already a fait accompli.  

If there is a problem, imho, it is that the Church waits so very long before excommunicating some of these individuals.  The longer they take the more these people like to grandstand, create propaganda, etc.  It would seem advisable that the minute someone takes their "cause" to the media, then they should be strongly shown the door.  Allow the Excommunication to be an invitation to repent or to move on with their lives. 

If we should have faith that his leaders made the correct call in regard to having an interpreter there, then why should we not have the same level of confidence in the timing of the council?

[rpn]

DROP

The SP should have paid an interpreter to attend or to provide CART (assistive technology).   Shouldn't have been so hard to find one via skype or in person from among the ranks of TR holding mormons.  

But I can see how the SP would refuse to allow an interpreter picked by someone who is being charged with apostasy, who is not just a non-mormon, but who is an ex-mormon.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Well, no offense intended.  I read it as being overly defensive, but I get your point.

I don't know one good reason, other than, as I said, there is no interpreter available.  So your any number of good reasons is a point of disagreement, I guess, that we might not be able to resolve. 

Well if you haven't been made privy to the reason, then, by definition, you wouldn't know of one. That doesn't mean there are none.

Perhaps what you mean to say is that you can't imagine one. Again, that doesn't mean there are no conceivable reasons.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

This thread has become a characterization of itself and its intended purpose...

I think you mean a caricature of itself. Perhaps you were the victim of an over-zealous auto-correct. That happens to me sometimes.
 

Quote

 

I used the debate over the hearing impaired interpreter as an example of how we all behave in defending our respective turfs...so what happens...we all begin to defend our respective turfs in this thread in stead of finding ways to simple state that we were wrong  when doing so would be appropriate... instead of continuing the fight to defend your turf.   

Sometimes simply admitting that you were wrong is the right thing to do and will go along way to bridge the divide...

 

Telling someone he should admit that he is wrong presupposes that he is wrong. If he doesn't believe that, why should he admit it?

This is a corollary to what you said to me earlier, when you told me I was embarrassing myself. Your remark presupposed that what I have been saying warrants embarrassment, something I don't admit to.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, ALarson said:

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.

As I just said in response to someone else, conceivably there could be unique occasions when the handbook ought to be overridden by good judgment made in the moment and sustained by the Spirit.