More From Jeremy Runnells

[ALarson]

I've seen this posted elsewhere, but haven't seen it posted here.  It appears to be a record of the meetings, etc., between Jeremy and his leaders from the beginning.

There is an audio recording of his first meeting with the Stake President and so on.  I don't know if I'll listen to it, but maybe some here will be interested:

http://cesletter.org/resign/

(I hope it's ok to post that link, if not the mods can remove it.)

.

 

Edited April 25, 2016 by ALarson

[Bernard Gui]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I've seen this posted elsewhere, but haven't seen it posted here.  It appears to be a record of the meetings, etc., between Jeremy and his leaders from the beginning.

There is an audio recording of his first meeting with the Stake President and so on.  I don't know if I'll listen to it, but maybe some here will be interested:

http://cesletter.org/resign/

(I hope it's ok to post that link, if not the mods can remove it.)

.

 

As Lester Flatt once said, "If you keep picking that thing, it won't heal."

 

Edited April 25, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Storm Rider]

seems it was discussed in the past thread about this individual.  Other than that, I was looking out the window at the front lawn today and a robin was standing on one of our solar lights along the sidewalk leading up to the house.  That bird crapped all over the solar panel.  I did not think very well of that bird and just went back to my morning chores telling myself that I needed to clean that bird crap off the solar panel so that it would work well.  

Edited April 25, 2016 by Storm Rider

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

seems it was discussed in the past thread about this individual.  

I didn't see the link posted (or the recordings and all past communication between Runnells and the leaders).  Was it?  If so, I missed it.

.

Edited April 25, 2016 by ALarson

[Stargazer]

16 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

seems it was discussed in the past thread about this individual.  Other than that, I was looking out the window at the front lawn today and a robin was standing on one of our solar lights along the sidewalk leading up to the house.  That bird crapped all over the solar panel.  I did think very well of the bird and just went back to morning chores telling myself that I needed to clean that bird crap off the solar panel so that it would work well.  

A more apropos comment I cannot imagine.

[JulieM]

28 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I didn't see the link posted (or the recordings and all past communication between Runnells and the leaders).  Was it?  If so, I missed it.

.

I saw this over on NOM being discussed.  They are calling it a "bomb" dropped by Jeremy Runnells on the church. 

I listened to a bit of the recording of when Jeremy first went in to meet with his stake president, but I think it's uncomfortable to listen to.  Did the stake president know that Jeremy was recording him?  From what I listened to, it didn't seem like it.

Is that even legal (to record without the permission of the person being recorded)?  If so, is it legal to make it public without their permission?

Edited April 25, 2016 by JulieM

[The Nehor]

54 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Is that even legal (to record without the permission of the person being recorded)?  If so, is it legal to make it public without their permission?

Utah is a one-party state which means it is usually legal to record as long as only one party involved consents (including the recorder). So under that law so far Runnells is fine.

However there is a proviso in the law against recording someone in a situation with a reasonable expectation of privacy without the consent of all. This has been used against unauthorized sex tapes, recordings in private business meetings, and would probably apply to a Church Disciplinary Hearing where privacy is expected. The Church is unlikely to pursue this avenue but if you want to call Runnells a criminal that would be an accurate description.

Proviso: I am not a lawyer. Take everything I said with a shaker of salt.

[The Nehor]

A more apt thread title would be: "Jackass continues to bray; other jackasses listen intently."

[consiglieri]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

A more apt thread title would be: "Jackass continues to bray; other jackasses listen intently."

"Meanwhile, ostriches stick heads in sand.  Film at eleven."

[Tacenda]

I listened to both of them, I thought the SP seemed to genuinely care about Runnels.  

I thought it kind of a low blow for Jeremy to ask the SP about JFS saying a man would never go to the moon, and the SP said he was aware of that, and then Jeremy said well that wasn't even in the CES letter so he must not have read it or else why wouldn't he call it out.  That was really kind of stupid on Jeremy's part because who could remember everything they read in pages and pages of the letter?

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Utah is a one-party state which means it is usually legal to record as long as only one party involved consents (including the recorder). So under that law so far Runnells is fine.

However there is a proviso in the law against recording someone in a situation with a reasonable expectation of privacy without the consent of all. This has been used against unauthorized sex tapes, recordings in private business meetings, and would probably apply to a Church Disciplinary Hearing where privacy is expected. The Church is unlikely to pursue this avenue but if you want to call Runnells a criminal that would be an accurate description.

Proviso: I am not a lawyer. Take everything I said with a shaker of salt.

I'm not sure there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in a room full of 16 men

[Russell C McGregor]

39 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I saw this over on NOM being discussed.  They are calling it a "bomb" dropped by Jeremy Runnells on the church. 

I listened to a bit of the recording of when Jeremy first went in to meet with his stake president, but I think it's uncomfortable to listen to.  Did the stake president know that Jeremy was recording him?  From what I listened to, it didn't seem like it.

Is that even legal (to record without the permission of the person being recorded)?  If so, is it legal to make it public without their permission?

I don't know if it's legal or not. It's certainly unethical.

And it demonstrates -- rather conclusively, IMHO -- that Mister Runnells wasn't "asking questions" in good faith, even back then. He was merely trolling for material he could exploit for propaganda purposes.

[JulieM]

10 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm not sure there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in a room full of 16 men

The recording is just of Runnells and the stake president (in his office) of their first interview.  It's not the disciplinary court.

I don't know if that matters (legally), but that's the recording on the link in the opening post.

[Gray]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

The recording is just of Runnells and the stake president (in his office) of their first interview.  It's not the disciplinary court.

I don't know if that matters (legally), but that's the recording on the link in the opening post.

Okay, I see. Well, I'll refrain from commentary as my legal analysis of Utah privacy laws would have no value. 

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

However there is a proviso in the law against recording someone in a situation with a reasonable expectation of privacy without the consent of all. This has been used against unauthorized sex tapes, recordings in private business meetings, and would probably apply to a Church Disciplinary Hearing where privacy is expected.

I believe the recording was a different one (involving only Runnells and his SP).  I haven't listened to it, but it states that it is:

"the meeting with Stake President Mark Ivins' secretary, Jeremy Runnells voluntarily meets President Ivins for the very first time in Ivins' church office in American Fork, Utah"

(On October 19, 2014)

ETA:

Oops, I see JulieM already beat me to making this point!

.

Edited April 25, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

i just listened to a portion of the recording or the excommunication hearing -- as much as I could stand before sheer boredom made it unbearable.

It's clear Runnells wanted to turn the whole thing into a grandstanding debate, and the fact that he was surreptitiously recording it makes the reason obviousl

He seems to want to make a great deal over none of the people in the room having read his CES letter or the Church essays. The more likely conclusion, it seems to me, is that they were declining to answer out of refusal to subject themselves to his grilling.

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

I didn't see the link posted (or the recordings and all past communication between Runnells and the leaders).  Was it?  If so, I missed it.

I posted it in this thread, with a question that I suspect Jeremy will never answer.

 

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

I'm not sure there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in a room full of 16 men

The church is not going to take him to court.  At worst he will get the publicity that he craves, will be hailed as a saint and hero by the hate mongers, and just get a slap on the wrist from the judge.

He prays to whatever entity that he now worships that the church will do this.

Edited April 25, 2016 by cdowis

[Russell C McGregor]

I wonder how many surreptitious recordings Mister Runnells and others like him make that never see the light of day?

Largely because they make the Church look good and them not so good?

Will we ever know?

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

55 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

I wonder how many surreptitious recordings Mister Runnells and others like him make that never see the light of day?

Largely because they make the Church look good and them not so good?

Will we ever know?

I haven't seen much evidence that those who make and release these recordings are very skilled at assessing what makes them look good.

[flameburns623]

I note that material is still flittering through my Facebook feed that plays up  the " Deaf Jeremy Runnells was denied an ASL interpreter" angle. 

I weighed in on it, after some forty or so comments had been made decrying the "injustice" of such an act. My feed originated, btw, from the fingers of DBMormon, using his real name.

Jeremy doesn't seem to be publicizing that his SP provided him a ' Terp, and when I did, nefarious motives were attributed to President Ivens relenting on the issue. 

Can I suggest that one or more LDS apologists look at appropriate ways to respond to this? Responses which possibly include a video IN AMEROCAN SIGN LANGUAGE?

Please be aware: frequently, ASL is a PRIMARY LANGUAGE for the Deaf, and English is often a aecond language. And ASL and English have different grammar and other characteristics, so that spoken and written English can have unique challenges for the Deaf.

When I get bulletins from many Deaf organizations, I often get both a printed transcription of the bulletin and  video of someone signing that bulletin in ASL. The transcript often includes English errors.

In fact, I get a lot of bulletins which are ONLY in ASL. And not usually even closed-captioned.

So: if Runnells won't do the honorable thing and make it abundantly clear that he was NOT DENIED AN INTERPRETER, then apologists may want to be prepared to answer that.

And to do so in the language of people who won't be able to hear the videos that Runnells surreptitiously made, and who largely spread information person-to-person in their own language.

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, flameburns623 said:

Can I suggest that one or more LDS apologists look at appropriate ways to respond to this? Responses which possibly include a video 

Ignore them and do something worthwhile.  

Edited April 26, 2016 by cdowis

[Nevo]

1 hour ago, flameburns623 said:

So: if Runnells won't do the honorable thing and make it abundantly clear that he was NOT DENIED AN INTERPRETER, then apologists may want to be prepared to answer that.

Runnells was initially denied an interpreter. The stake president wrote: "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."

As Runnells's website notes:

Quote

Ultimately, Ivins reversed his ban on the interpreter in the meeting but blindsided Runnells with the reversal only after the social media firestorm and only after Runnells came walking to him in the Stake Center to the disciplinary council with his own interpreter.

Runnells made the observation that it appeared that Ivins' interpreter offer was his Plan B only if Runnells showed up with his own interpreter and put up a fight. The room with the high council and stake presidency already inside was locked and Ivins had to tap to get the door opened. No interpreter was present in the room. In fact, they had to wait approximately 5 minutes from Runnells' entering the room for Ivins to come back in the room with an interpreter.

So Runnells has publicly acknowledged that the stake president eventually provided an interpreter at the disciplinary council.

The stake president's concerns about an ASL interpreter were expressed in two earlier emails:

• "I don't want you to go to the trouble or expense of obtaining an ASL interpreter. Also, the confidential nature of our meeting makes the presence of an interpreter a concern. As you know, translation is not always precise, and I don't want there to be any misunderstandings between the two of us." (6 March)
• "Communicating with you through an ASL interpreter is not something that I am willing to do in the matters involved here. You have already demonstrated your abilities and willingness to write your thoughts. I am willing to communicate with you directly, in writing, unfiltered." (11 March)

Presumably those were still his concerns when he initially denied Runnells's request to have an interpreter at the disciplinary council.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Nevo

[JulieM]

4 hours ago, cdowis said:

The church is not going to take him to court.  At worst he will get the publicity that he craves, will be hailed as a saint and hero by the hate mongers, and just get a slap on the wrist from the judge.

That would be crazy (for the church to sue Jeremy).  I'm sure they just hope things die down and doing this would accomplish just the opposite.  I agree that Jeremy would enjoy playing the victim again which is another reason the church would never do this, in my opinion.

[flameburns623]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

Runnells was initially denied an interpreter. The stake president wrote: "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."

As Runnells's website notes:

So Runnells has publicly acknowledged that the stake president eventually provided an interpreter at the disciplinary council.

The stake president's concerns about an ASL interpreter were expressed in two earlier emails:

• "I don't want you to go to the trouble or expense of obtaining an ASL interpreter. Also, the confidential nature of our meeting makes the presence of an interpreter a concern. As you know, translation is not always precise, and I don't want there to be any misunderstandings between the two of us." (6 March)
• "Communicating with you through an ASL interpreter is not something that I am willing to do in the matters involved here. You have already demonstrated your abilities and willingness to write your thoughts. I am willing to communicate with you directly, in writing, unfiltered." (11 March)

Presumably those were still his concerns when he initially denied Runnells's request to have an interpreter at the disciplinary council.

Thanks for the correctiin about Runnells acknowledging that he got an interpreter. The latest dump of info is voluminous andI am just not willing to muck through it. What I saw is what scrolled through my own Facebool timeline.

I posted elsewhere that licensed ASl interpreters are bound by a code of ethics to strict confidentiality. Presdident Ivens' concerns on that score would be groundless, even assuming the Stake paid for a private ASL interpreter.

Runnell's Stake is in Utah, however, sugesting the Church had resources for a sign language Missionary or other ASL-adept and trusted person. Religious institutions are not required to utilize certified 'Terps, as government and most other private entities are required.

There might have been some travel expense involved, but nothing like the hourly rate of a professional interpreter. I'd think, given this, that the Stake could have gotten an interpreter cheaply

I don't wanna speculate on the five or so minute delay after the SP told Jeremy he had a 'Terp. There may have been other reasons for the delay.