Scott Lloyd Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 48 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: It seems from your first two posts in this thread that your position was that it is not clear that Jeremy actually needed assistance even though he is legally deaf. My point with those posts was that we couldn't know the extent of his deafness, whether an interpreter was warranted, and therefore, publicly denouncing the stake president was unseemly, as he, being involved in the situation, was more apt than any of us to be in possession of the facts.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 32 minutes ago, ttribe said: You were neither played, nor vindicated, IMO. I was one of the ones who was played by virtue of the fact that, ultimately, the SP did do the right thing and we weren't informed of that fact. I don't see how that vindicates your position, though. See above. You, like others, jumped to conclusions. I did not. 1
ttribe Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: My point with those posts was that we couldn't know the extent of his deafness, whether an interpreter was warranted, and therefore, publicly denouncing the stake president was unseemly, as he, being involved in the situation, was more apt than any of us to be in possession of the facts. Umm, no. An interpreter obviously was warranted and the SP provided one. That's not at all the position you were taking ex ante. 15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: See above. You, like others, jumped to conclusions. I did not. See above. 1
Calm Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 3 minutes ago, ttribe said: That's not at all the position you were taking ex ante. If you mean that Scott's position was not as he explained, then I need to state that I read his posts as stating the position as he explains it now. If you mean his position was not that an interpreter was needed, I don't think he would disagree with you...which is why I am assuming you mean the first.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 5 minutes ago, ttribe said: Umm, no. An interpreter obviously was warranted and the SP provided one. That's not at all the position you were taking ex ante. See above. My position was to hold off on judging the stake president, unlike others who were denouncing him for allegedly not doing the "decent" or "moral" thing.
ttribe Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 1 minute ago, Calm said: If you mean that Scott's position was not as he explained, then I need to state that I read his posts as stating the position as he explains it now. If you mean his position was not that an interpreter was needed, I don't think he would disagree with you...which is why I am assuming you mean the first. You are misreading me. This is getting silly and the last thing Scott Lloyd needs is you rushing to his defense. Scott's position, as I understand it, was always that he supported the SP's decision to NOT have an interpreter present because the SP must have had "all the facts." As it turns out, the SP reversed course on this and DID provide an interpreter. So, Scott was defending a position that didn't actually happen and I was criticizing a denial that was reversed. I (admittedly) got played by the fact that Runnells didn't disclose the fact that an interpreter was present. I continue to believe that the SP was incorrect in his initial denial, but that's a rather moot point now. I don't see how the SP's reversal vindicates Scott defending the initial denial.
Calm Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 Scott's fundamental point was the SP was in the position to know best (something I disagree with). He was supporting whatever position the SP chose. Originally that was not to have an interpreter because that was the info that had been given, but if it had been the reverse Scott would have been saying that was appropriate. I see no reason why I shouldn't be as prone to defend Scott when I think he is being misunderstood as I feel prone to defend the right of the Deaf to have interpreters present if they request it. 1
SeekingUnderstanding Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 11 minutes ago, Calm said: If you mean that Scott's position was not as he explained, then I need to state that I read his posts as stating the position as he explains it now. If you mean his position was not that an interpreter was needed, I don't think he would disagree with you...which is why I am assuming you mean the first. 10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: My position was to hold off on judging the stake president, unlike others who were denouncing him for allegedly not doing the "decent" or "moral" thing. 5 minutes ago, ttribe said: You are misreading me. This is getting silly and the last thing Scott Lloyd needs is you rushing to his defense. Scott's position, as I understand it, was always that he supported the SP's decision to NOT have an interpreter present because the SP must have had "all the facts." As it turns out, the SP reversed course on this and DID provide an interpreter. So, Scott was defending a position that didn't actually happen and I was criticizing a denial that was reversed. I (admittedly) got played by the fact that Runnells didn't disclose the fact that an interpreter was present. I continue to believe that the SP was incorrect in his initial denial, but that's a rather moot point now. I don't see how the SP's reversal vindicates Scott defending the initial denial. For what its worth, I have to agree with ttribe. I read Scott as saying we shouldn't judge the decision of Runnell's SP to deny an interpreter because he probably had good reasons for denying it. This is seen in Scott's many posts questioning how legitimate Runnell's hearing loss actually was, and how accommodations could be made outside of an interpreter to help Runnells. I also must say that I didn't see very many (if any) people "denouncing" the SP either, unless saying that he erred by not allowing an interpreter counts as denouncing him. 3
Calm Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 My disagreement is limited to accommodations that are appropriate for most effective communication or physical comfort.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 3 minutes ago, Calm said: My disagreement is limited to accommodations that are appropriate for most effective communication or physical comfort. Which is the whole point of this thread. Johnie Cake was saying isn't this is something everyone can agree on? Even the Stake President in question came around to this position.
ALarson Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 5 minutes ago, Calm said: Scott's fundamental point was the SP was in the position to know best (something I disagree with). He was supporting whatever position the SP chose. Originally that was not to have an interpreter because that was the info that had been given, but if it had been the reverse Scott would have been saying that was appropriate. I think you summed that up nicely. I feel that any person's request for an interpreter should be honored and met if at all possible. It's not up to us to judge someone's severity of their hearing loss. I think the SP showed that he also agreed with this in the end and rethought his decision. We're all human and I have to believe that emotions ran high with all involved. I credit the SP for reversing his decision and doing the right thing, and I believe Runnells should acknowledge this too (but I won't hold my breath on that last part ) 2
Calm Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 3 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: Which is the whole point of this thread. Johnie Cake was saying isn't this is something everyone can agree on? Even the Stake President in question came around to this position. Which is why I said I disagreed with Scott. At this point, I am reserving all opinion on what the SP did prior to the council until I hear it from him.
Calm Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: For what its worth, I have to agree with ttribe. I read Scott as saying we shouldn't judge the decision of Runnell's SP to deny an interpreter because he probably had good reasons for denying it... I am not saying it is irrational to read Scott's posts that way. I am simply saying I didn't and thus I think Scott meant what he says he meant in his recent post. It can be very easy to misinterpret what people write. It seems to happen in a majority of cases, though hopefully miscommunication is minor in most (though I have my doubts on that).
SeekingUnderstanding Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 21 minutes ago, Calm said: I am not saying it is irrational to read Scott's posts that way. I am simply saying I didn't and thus I think Scott meant what he says he meant in his recent post. It can be very easy to misinterpret what people write. It seems to happen in a majority of cases, though hopefully miscommunication is minor in most (though I have my doubts on that). I replied before I saw your post directly above the one you quoted: Quote Scott's fundamental point was the SP was in the position to know best (something I disagree with). He was supporting whatever position the SP chose. Originally that was not to have an interpreter because that was the info that had been given, but if it had been the reverse Scott would have been saying that was appropriate. I see no reason why I shouldn't be as prone to defend Scott when I think he is being misunderstood as I feel prone to defend the right of the Deaf to have interpreters present if they request it. I have no doubt that Scott would defend whatever the stake president chose, and this makes sense and is consistent with Scott's approach with many topics. Thanks for helping me understand. 2
Calm Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 14 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: Thanks for helping me understand. Hopefully I understand well enough in the first place. I respect Scott's position (as I understand it )even if I disagree with it in this one qualfication. In the vast majority of circumstances (for example, what should or should not be discussed at the council, who are appropriate witnesses), I believe the SP is in the best position to define the parameters of the council.
flameburns623 Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: My point with those posts was that we couldn't know the extent of his deafness, whether an interpreter was warranted, and therefore, publicly denouncing the stake president was unseemly, as he, being involved in the situation, was more apt than any of us to be in possession of the facts. Mr. Lloyd: the position I took, over on the "other" thread: and the position I stand upon now; is that if someone self-identifies as having a need and requests a reasonable accomodation, the Church should do what private employers and the government are required to do, by law: reach out and offer those reasonable accomodations. It is inappropriate and boorish to ask "how badly" a person needs a reasonable accomodation, and most other entities would face EEOC lawsuits if they did so.The Church should certainly not be LESS Christian than a couthouse or a fast-food franchise, even though religious institutions have been largely excluded from compliance with ADA laws. Runnells reported as part of one podcast that he has some sort of progressive disorder which impacts his hearing loss. I don't recall the details, but he indicated that his cochlear implants were of diminishing utility. And there are all kinds of factors at stake in the interactions of Deaf people with "Hearies" which might lead a "Deafie" to want assistance in a hostile/adversarial situation, regardless of what they might want or need when among friendly or neutral associates. I tried to underscore some of that in one of my posts earlier, just before the other shoe dropped This should not be simply about Jeremy Runnells, but about the sort of witness the Church wants to communicate. The Stake President advised Jeremy, apparently in writing, that the SP would NOT accomodate his request, nor permit Runnells his own accomodation. I felt and still feel this denial was a bad mistake. The Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing community is 90% unchurched, often suspicious of or hostile to organised religion, and it is a particularly difficult community to reach into. Many Deaf are insular and trust only sources within their own "tribe"; and, being predisposed to expect bigotry and "Audism" from Hearing people, will believe the worst all too readily. At a minimum, the SP could have declined an accomodation in more sensitve language. I said, early on, that Runnell's hand-chosen 'Terp would likely be an activist hostile to the Church and almost certainly not willing to honor the confidentiality of the Bishop's Court proceedings. But the LDS Church has active outreaches to the Deaf in most Stakes: I believed that trustworthy resources for a reasonable accomodation were almost certainly available. And even the Church Handbook mandates that ecclesial leaders work with those in need of accomodation. In the upshot, the SP complied with the Handbook, albeit without prior notice. Even Runnells was taken aback to find an interpreter present. Jeremy, of course did not bother to mention that in his after-event press conference. Even though he pointedly remarked that his own 'Terp was dismised. I am a bit embarrassed at the energy I put into some of my responses on Monday and Tuesday. On the other hand, what I wrote was composed in good faith, taking the Stake President at his word, and trusting Jeremy Runnells to give full disclosure more than I ought to have trusted. I still believe the incident generated good conversation about an issue which is often invisible to many. As someone who is Hard-of-Hearing himself, and who in recent years has taken some time to explore the Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing community, I have come to recognize how tender are the sensitivities of some therein: how much work needs done to earn trust, and how easily that trust could be damaged. Hope this is useful to ponder upon. 4
Calm Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 I thought it was interesting that Runnells went on an ASL mission. The Church Distribution also has materials for helping to learn general and church related ASL terms, video and book. I think I gave my copies to a relative who was learning ASL. It .would be nice to see something SOP on a stake level...or if there already is have it better publicized. When I have time I may go explore lds.org to see what's new as it has been years since I last checked. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 1 hour ago, Calm said: Hopefully I understand well enough in the first place. I respect Scott's position (as I understand it )even if I disagree with it in this one qualfication. In the vast majority of circumstances (for example, what should or should not be discussed at the council, who are appropriate witnesses), I believe the SP is in the best position to define the parameters of the council. My position in all of this is informed by my underlying suspicion that I can trust Jeremy Runnells to be honest and above-board far less than I can trust a typical stake president to do the right thing under a given set of circumstances, whether or not observers and armchair quarterbacks are acquainted with all of the facts. Someone who would sneak a recording device into a disciplinary council contrary to directive would not be above bringing someone in in the guise of a sign language interpreter for whatever ulterior motive he, Runnells, had in mind. Of course, I had no way of knowing until now that the stake president in the end did provide an interpreter. On the other hand, I have been absolutely certain through this whole thing that we weren't getting all the material facts. 1
ttribe Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: My position in all of this is informed by my underlying suspicion that I can trust Jeremy Runnells to be honest and above-board far less than I can trust a typical stake president to do the right thing under a given set of circumstances, whether or not observers and armchair quarterbacks are acquainted with all of the facts. Someone who would sneak a recording device into a disciplinary council contrary to directive would not be above bringing someone in in the guise of a sign language interpreter for whatever ulterior motive he, Runnells, had in mind. Of course, I had no way of knowing until now that the stake president in the end did provide an interpreter. On the other hand, I have been absolutely certain through this whole thing that we weren't getting all the material facts. If the interpreter was a licensed professional, this would be considered a major ethical breach. I wouldn't entertain this suspicion on a regular basis. 1
flameburns623 Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 8 hours ago, Calm said: I thought it was interesting that Runnells went on an ASL mission. The Church Distribution also has materials for helping to learn general and church related ASL terms, video and book. I think I gave my copies to a relative who was learning ASL. It .would be nice to see something SOP on a stake level...or if there already is have it better publicized. When I have time I may go explore lds.org to see what's new as it has been years since I last checked. Where! Do they have ASL materials?!?!? I just signed up for ASL classes again. Hopefully, work doesn't interfere by zonking me with scads of overtime again this year. Anyhow: I will scout around on the Church Distribution website for ASL resources but if someone has a direct link I'd be greatly obliged.
mfbukowski Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 47 minutes ago, flameburns623 said: Where! Do they have ASL materials?!?!? I just signed up for ASL classes again. Hopefully, work doesn't interfere by zonking me with scads of overtime again this year. Anyhow: I will scout around on the Church Distribution website for ASL resources but if someone has a direct link I'd be greatly obliged. Just fyi they also have ASL temple sessions All you have to do is request it- there are tv screens in each room they turn on with a taped translation 1
flameburns623 Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 1 minute ago, mfbukowski said: Just fyi they also have ASL temple sessions All you have to do is request it- there are tv screens in each room they turn on with a taped translation ASL would be a second language for me and it will take years for me to acquire that much fluency but that's good to know.
Calm Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 1 hour ago, flameburns623 said: Where! Do they have ASL materials?!?!? I just signed up for ASL classes again. Hopefully, work doesn't interfere by zonking me with scads of overtime again this year. Anyhow: I will scout around on the Church Distribution website for ASL resources but if someone has a direct link I'd be greatly obliged. https://www.lds.org/topics/disability/news/new-asl-resources?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2011-03-33-general-conference-asl?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/ensign/2011/09/on-the-web?lang=eng bedtime so here is some starting terms: asl general conference asl dictionary asl hymns asl primary songs asl video asl conference live asl book of mormon asl videos asl sacrament prayer asl general conference april 2 2016 https://www.lds.org/media-library/video?lang=eng&clang=ase&_r=1 Looks like all the new testament stories are all in ASL, perhaps all the other scriptures stories as well. The interpreter shows how important to the story are the facial expression, lovely job.
flameburns623 Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 A British Sign Language short film which shows what "audism" looks like to Deaf folks.
flameburns623 Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 19 minutes ago, Calm said: https://www.lds.org/topics/disability/news/new-asl-resources?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2011-03-33-general-conference-asl?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/ensign/2011/09/on-the-web?lang=eng bedtime so here is some starting terms: asl general conference asl dictionary asl hymns asl primary songs asl video asl conference live asl book of mormon asl videos asl sacrament prayer asl general conference april 2 2016 https://www.lds.org/media-library/video?lang=eng&clang=ase&_r=1 Looks like all the new testament stories are all in ASL, perhaps all the other scriptures stories as well. The interpreter shows how important to the story are the facial expression, lovely job. Thanks!
Recommended Posts