Setting the Record Straight

[Johnnie Cake]

First:  Jeremy Runnel's SP DID provide a hearing interpreter.  Jeremy came with his own and the SP refused to allow the one accompanying Jeremey to attend the court but did provide one...so I wanted to correct that.  Cudo's to the SP.

Secondly:  I've listen to the entire audio of Jeremy's church court... yes he recorded it... The SP refused to allow Jeremy to ask any questions however he did allow him to make a 45 min statement.  The SP at first listed the charges against Runnels...the reasons why he was being brought up on charges of apostasy and then turned 45 min over to Jeremy.  Jeremy began by asking that the SP if he was ever going to answer the question he ahd...to which the SP refused to be engaged and merely stated that this time is to allow Runnels to make his statement not ask questions.  Runnels listed several reasons which led to his creating his letter to the CES director following this he handed the SP a letter of resignation.

That's about it...but I wanted to correct the record that the SP did in fact allow and provide an interpreter.

 

This is a duplicate thread.

[bluebell]

Has Runnells spoken about the release of the recording?  

[CV75]

ooops

Edited April 20, 2016 by CV75

[Johnnie Cake]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Has Runnells spoken about the release of the recording?  

that I don't know...but he is obviously the one who recorded and released it

[Johnnie Cake]

12 minutes ago, CV75 said:

ooops

The initial report was that the SP did not allow Runnels to have an interpreter....when in fact he did not allow Runnels to have HIS OWN interpreter....but one was provided.

[Johnnie Cake]

Clearly the SP did not want to be drawn into a discussion...he made a statement then allowed Runnels to make a statement after which Runnels resigned...quite dramatically

[consiglieri]

I haven't had a chance to watch the whole video yet.

But I watched the beginning when the SP was reading a written statement.

I believe he said something about making himself available prior to attempt to answer Jeremy's questions.

Do I have that right?

If so, is it true?

My impression was that Jeremy was saying that all he got in response to his questions was silence.

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Clearly the SP did not want to be drawn into a discussion...he made a statement then allowed Runnels to make a statement after which Runnels resigned...quite dramatically

Perhaps the SP's instincts were on high alert? It seems he was right if Tunnels recorded it secretly, presumably to publicize it.

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

The initial report was that the SP did not allow Runnels to have an interpreter....when in fact he did not allow Runnels to have HIS OWN interpreter....but one was provided.

I think the initial report was just that the interpreter that Runnells brought wasn't allowed in, not that the "SP did not allow Runnels to have an interpreter".  (Unless you're referring to the written refusal from the SP a few days prior to the disciplinary counsel?).  

(It would have been best if Runnells had added that the SP provided an interpreter.)

[The Nehor]

Thought as much about the interpreter.

[stemelbow]

17 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I haven't had a chance to watch the whole video yet.

But I watched the beginning when the SP was reading a written statement.

I believe he said something about making himself available prior to attempt to answer Jeremy's questions.

Do I have that right?

If so, is it true?

My impression was that Jeremy was saying that all he got in response to his questions was silence.

That seemed to be the case, although the SP didn't address it.  It seems like when they met earlier Jeremy had it narrowed down to a few questions--what errors are in the CES Letter and perhaps a couple more.  According to Jeremy the SP said he'd get back to him, but never did.  Although Jeremy thanked him for reading his CES letter at one point.  So it was like the CES director--they basically ignored his questions. 

[JAHS]

30 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I haven't had a chance to watch the whole video yet.

But I watched the beginning when the SP was reading a written statement.

I believe he said something about making himself available prior to attempt to answer Jeremy's questions.

Do I have that right?

If so, is it true?

My impression was that Jeremy was saying that all he got in response to his questions was silence.

What the stake president said was:

"I’ve offered to have written dialogue with you and I outlined certain guidelines for you to respect during our discussions. Including your agreeing to keep our discussions confidential for the time that we would communicate with each other. You chose not to participate in these discussions."

So the SP wanted to keep the conversations confidential, Jeremy would not agree to that so that is probably why the SP would not answer his questions.

 

[consiglieri]

14 minutes ago, JAHS said:

What the stake president said was:

"I’ve offered to have written dialogue with you and I outlined certain guidelines for you to respect during our discussions. Including your agreeing to keep our discussions confidential for the time that we would communicate with each other. You chose not to participate in these discussions."

So the SP wanted to keep the conversations confidential, Jeremy would not agree to that so that is probably why the SP would not answer his questions.

 

Thanks for transcribing that!

I keep wondering why it is the LDS Church seems to want everything to be a secret.

And if Jeremy won't agree to keep the "written dialogue" a secret, the SP won't engage.

This makes the SP look afraid of not only writing back and forth to Jeremy, but of just talking to the guy.

 

At some point, it might be a good idea to have considered treating Jeremy like a human being.

Not the enemy.  A human being.

I think things would have gone better if this had been done.

[JAHS]

9 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I keep wondering why it is the LDS Church seems to want everything to be a secret.

The general policy is to keep every discussion that a member has with his Bishop or SP confidential. It's the best way to go so as not to violate a persons privacy, especially for those times when a member is making a confession.

 

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, JAHS said:

The general policy is to keep every discussion that a member has with his Bishop or SP confidential. 

I believe the member can choose to share information, it's the Bishop or SP that is bound by confidentiality.  (At least that's my understanding.)

.

Edited April 20, 2016 by ALarson

[JAHS]

18 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I believe the member can choose to share information, it's the Bishop or SP that is bound by confidentiality.  (At least that's my understanding.)

.

Yes I was referring to the Bishop or SP in answer to Consig's question about why "the church" keeps things secret. 

 

[bluebell]

43 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Thanks for transcribing that!

I keep wondering why it is the LDS Church seems to want everything to be a secret.

And if Jeremy won't agree to keep the "written dialogue" a secret, the SP won't engage.

This makes the SP look afraid of not only writing back and forth to Jeremy, but of just talking to the guy.

 

At some point, it might be a good idea to have considered treating Jeremy like a human being.

Not the enemy.  A human being.

I think things would have gone better if this had been done.

It could just be that the SP didn't want to be recorded, as Jeremy has secretly recorded him in the past i believe.  

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Yes I was referring to the Bishop or SP in answer to Consig's question about why "the church" keeps things secret. 

 

Got it.  

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

So it was like the CES director--they basically ignored his questions. 

Good.  It seems to me a person who has sincere questions does not demand answers to them.  I really don't think he wanted those questions answered anyway.  I am confident he already arrived at a conclusion to them.

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Thanks for transcribing that!

I keep wondering why it is the LDS Church seems to want everything to be a secret.

And if Jeremy won't agree to keep the "written dialogue" a secret, the SP won't engage.

This makes the SP look afraid of not only writing back and forth to Jeremy, but of just talking to the guy.

 

At some point, it might be a good idea to have considered treating Jeremy like a human being.

Not the enemy.  A human being.

I think things would have gone better if this had been done.

Perhaps some people just don't want their conversations to be part of the public domain.  I would do the same thing in his position.   He did treat him like a human being.  The problem is that Jeremy wanted to use and abuse the SP for his own purpose and the SP did not want to play.  Nobody has a responsibility to be a part of somebody silly games.