More From Jeremy Runnells

[Abulafia]

Having never heard an excommunication hearing, and appreciating that privacy is for the benefit of the accused,  I don't see a problem with Jeremy's actions here.  I read the transcripts for these pre excommunication meetings and was mainly interested with the SPs questioning.  His 15 minute speech was a little strange (who doesn't have  problem with Hebrew portrayals of a God who kills and orders the killing of kids), but here, his questioning is around establishing what Jeremy believes currently.  The CES letter is something he isn't interested in, from my view.  His questions to Jeremy are difficult ones.  Has anyone distilled them down to the SPs core issues?

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

His questions to Jeremy are difficult ones.  Has anyone distilled them down to the SPs core issues?

I think it's a single question, actually: Have you repeatedly acted in clear, open, and deliberate opposition to the Church or its leaders?

[Abulafia]

Okay.  I just went through the first two meetings.  Here they are.

 

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, consiglieri said:

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

For that rebuttal to work I would have to be ignoring something about Runnells. I read his letter and his silly complaints.

Oh, I get it. I have not criticized his hair enough. I will get right on it.

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, Gray said:

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

Yeah, but the legal context for that privacy is not quantity of people present. It is whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy by those involved and whether such privacy is reasonable. Since the Stake President explicitly said not to bring any recording devices and the rest of the High Council expects there to be no recording devices and it was in a closed room with no preexisting recording equipment there is a reasonable case that they wanted the meeting kept private and took reasonable steps to keep it private they would have a strong case.

Unless you are suggesting that these precautions were not enough to get that expectation. Perhaps disciplinary councils should strip search and do cavity searches on those brought before disciplinary councils to establish that they want it private?

[The Nehor]

8 hours 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.

Probably falls in a similar legal situation but it is unlikely to be tested.

As much glee as many LDS onlookers would if this idiot was over the coals legally I find it very unlikely the local leadership cares enough to make it an issue and will instead let Runnell's [sarcasm]thrilling saga[/sarcasm] die off quietly. 

[Russell C McGregor]

7 hours ago, Nevo said:

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.

"Blindsided?"

So President Ivins was bad for initially saying no, and even worse for eventually finding an interpreter.

Why am I not surprised?

The two rules of the apostate creed:

1. Everything the Church does is wrong.
2. If the Church ever does anything right, refer to rule 1.

7 hours ago, Nevo said:

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.

This guy is the Sultan of Spin!

An "observation?" What a clever way to make a baseless accusation look somehow impartial. It's all mind-reading and supposition, without a shred of evidence to support it.

What does Sultan Runnells imagine that President Ivins said to the interpreter? "You just wait here and I'll see if he brings an interpreter with him. If he doesn't, you can go home. Sorry if we're wasting your time!"

Where does Sultan Runnells imagine President Ivins was keeping this interpreter that it took him five minutes to get him? In a car three miles away with the engine running?

Well, I'm sure Mister Runnells has a following who'll uncritically chug that kool-aid.

 

[Kenngo1969]

16 hours ago, Gray said:

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

As others have pointed out, we're not talking about the Disciplinary Council.  But if we were, my first question would be, "Are all of those men bound by an oath not to discuss what went on in that meeting?"  If the answer to that question is yes, while I'm not a lawyer, and while I will certainly defer to anyone who does possess that particular credential, then I would say that it doesn't matter whether there are 16, 160, or 1,600, or even more men in that room.  

Besides, if Jeremy Runnells were a victim of one of those 16 men deciding to speak publicly about what went on in that room, and if he wanted to sue for, e.g., defamation, I doubt anyone would make the argument, "Well, gee, yeah, technically everybody in that room is bound by confidentiality, but, since there were sixteen of us, you really can't expect that none of us will talk, can you?"  And if someone did try to make that argument in court, I have a hard time believing that a judge or a jury would buy it.

But since this is Jeremy Runnells trying to "stick it" to the Big, Bad, Mean, Evil, LD$, Inc., well, in that case, anything goes.

[Tacenda]

http://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/flip-the-script-the-how-and-why-of-jeremy-runnells-exit/

Maybe this has been posted already.  

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

As others have pointed out, we're not talking about the Disciplinary Council.  But if we were, my first question would be, "Are all of those men bound by an oath not to discuss what went on in that meeting?"  If the answer to that question is yes, while I'm not a lawyer, and while I will certainly defer to anyone who does possess that particular credential, then I would say that it doesn't matter whether there are 16, 160, or 1,600, or even more men in that room.  

Besides, if Jeremy Runnells were a victim of one of those 16 men deciding to speak publicly about what went on in that room, and if he wanted to sue for, e.g., defamation, I doubt anyone would make the argument, "Well, gee, yeah, technically everybody in that room is bound by confidentiality, but, since there were sixteen of us, you really can't expect that none of us will talk, can you?"  And if someone did try to make that argument in court, I have a hard time believing that a judge or a jury would buy it.

But since this is Jeremy Runnells trying to "stick it" to the Big, Bad, Mean, Evil, LD$, Inc., well, in that case, anything goes.

Apparently I got the context wrong - this was a private meeting between Runnells and his SP. I have no comment, other than to say that Utah is a one party consent state for audio recordings. I have no idea if a potential litigation would go anywhere though. 

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

... Well, I'm sure Mister Runnells has a following who'll uncritically chug that kool-aid.

 

Not only does he have a following, now, he's ...

Jeremy Runnells, P.A.^*

^* Professional Apostate

He has a Foundation!  For the low, low price of just $14 per month (U.S.), you, too, can support the cause!

 

[ALarson]

3 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

This guy is the Sultan of Spin!

An "observation?" What a clever way to make a baseless accusation look somehow impartial. It's all mind-reading and supposition, without a shred of evidence to support it.

What does Sultan Runnells imagine that President Ivins said to the interpreter? "You just wait here and I'll see if he brings an interpreter with him. If he doesn't, you can go home. Sorry if we're wasting your time!"

Where does Sultan Runnells imagine President Ivins was keeping this interpreter that it took him five minutes to get him? In a car three miles away with the engine running?

Well, I'm sure Mister Runnells has a following who'll uncritically chug that kool-aid.

I see no problem with Runnells relating what took place with the interpreter and what his opinion is regarding what ended up happening.  The way this aspect of the case was handled was odd.  Runnell's request should not have been denied several times leaving him to believe that he would need to provide his own interpreter if there was to be one present at the DC.  And, the SP definitely should have told Runnells that he had changed his mind and would be providing an interpreter for him (which was the right thing to do here).   

.

Edited April 26, 2016 by ALarson

[Atheist Mormon]

15 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

 

Well, he played his cards well. Church gave him ample opportunities.

[ALarson]

39 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

http://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/flip-the-script-the-how-and-why-of-jeremy-runnells-exit/

Maybe this has been posted already.  

That is interesting to read through.  I do believe that Runnells resigned in the end to retain control over his own life.  I'm not a fan of Runnells and there is much he has done that I do not agree with, but I do understand doing this.

From this article:

Quote

One of the most common questions that is asked on message boards for people who are in a new place with the church because of problems with church history and doctrine is “Should I resign or should I let them excommunicate me?” 

....

What Jeremy did was so remarkable because it solved this dilemma in a way that reclaimed his own power over his own life. “I excommunicate the church from my life” – That statement is so potent because it asserts real authority. You are the owner of your life and your identity. 

.

Edited April 26, 2016 by ALarson

[bluebell]

48 minutes ago, ALarson said:

"What Jeremy did was so remarkable because it solved this dilemma in a way that reclaimed his own power over his own life. “I excommunicate the church from my life” – That statement is so potent because it asserts real authority. You are the owner of your life and your identity."

I don't know how remarkable it was, but i agree that it was for the best and it was him taking control of his life.  Now he can leave the "victim of his stake president" narrative behind and move forward.

[Analytics]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, but the legal context for that privacy is not quantity of people present. It is whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy by those involved and whether such privacy is reasonable. Since the Stake President explicitly said not to bring any recording devices and the rest of the High Council expects there to be no recording devices and it was in a closed room with no preexisting recording equipment there is a reasonable case that they wanted the meeting kept private and took reasonable steps to keep it private they would have a strong case.

Unless you are suggesting that these precautions were not enough to get that expectation. Perhaps disciplinary councils should strip search and do cavity searches on those brought before disciplinary councils to establish that they want it private?

In this case, it isn't just about their "reasonable expectations" and what the Stake President explicitly told Jeremy to do.  At the beginning of the meeting, the Stake President actually produced a legal document promising that the proceedings must be kept confidential and would not be recorded, and required everyone present to sign it.  In the official summons to the council, the Stake President had told Jeremy he'd be required to sign such a document, so Jeremy was expecting it. 

I'd love to see the Church sue Jeremy for breaching this written agreement.

What was bizarre is that the Stake President refused to give Jeremy an executed copy of the contract.  Isn't it standard legal procedure that when contracts are signed, two identical copies are signed and each party gets their own copy with original signatures?  But the Stake President refused to give Jeremy an executed copy of the document he signed--neither an original nor a copy of the original.  That's just weird.  I wish Jeremy would have brought an attorney and would have said he never signs documents without his attorney reviewing it first.  I'd love to hear the Stake President explain to Jeremy's attorney that he is requesting Jeremy sign a document which he cannot get a copy of.  But I doubt it even would have gotten so far; based on how he was acting, I bet the Stake President wouldn't have even allowed Jeremy's attorney to see the document he wanted Jeremy to sign.  "Only people who are invited to the council may see this document.  Your attorney is not invited to the council."

Edited April 26, 2016 by Analytics

[Mystery Meat]

15 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

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.

Shame on Bill if that's true. For someone who is on a quest for truth, you would think he could get some simple facts right.

[Calm]

13 hours 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.

Given that English is Runnells' native tongue as it is President Ivin's, plus the complicated nature of Runnells' desired conversation and the SP likely intending to attempt to hold Runnells strictly to the topic of his apostasy, it makes sense to me that being precise in language was of great importance.  Runnells apparently thought so too as he brought notes of what he wanted to say and wanted an interpreter.  They both wanted the same thing, as perfect and precise understanding as possible; they just saw achieving that as best done by different means.  

Perhaps President Ivins had past experiences with ASL translation experiences that led to his concern.  I could see someone who was not as familiar with the language missing quite a bit of nuance, the translator might have to simplify concepts in order to meet the needs of a more limited vocabulary range.  Ivins knew Runnells was quite comfortable in the writing arena, so why not use that format to increase accuracy of understanding.

I am not suggesting that an interpreter should have been denied, just that Pres. Ivins preferring writing in the situation is quite understandable even solely for improving communication.  I think I personally would prefer to have all important conversations proceed in writing or a combination of writing and speaking as I have seen too many walk away from the same speaking conversations with very diferent ideas about what was discussed and even more important what was agreed to.  It still happens with writing, but less often imo and it is definitely useful for tracking down what was said that led to a particular understanding.

[Abulafia]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

http://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/flip-the-script-the-how-and-why-of-jeremy-runnells-exit/

Maybe this has been posted already.  

That was a very Interesting article.  Thanks.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

.  Now he can leave the "victim of his stake president" narrative behind and move forward.

It will be interesting to see if this actually happens.

[Calm]

I can also see why Pres Ivins might not have shared he changed his mind...perhaps he was hoping this lack would push Runnells to use writing when needed for clarity (even though he had not taken the step of submitting a statement 3 days in advance), which appears to be Ivins' preferred communication format with Runnells (I based this conclusion on his offer to answer Runnells' question in writing).  Second best would be to use an interpreter if Runnells refused, which Ivins decided to have on hand if Runnells declined.  Runnells showing up with an interpreter made it clear the writing format was off the table so shift to SOP of offering a church provided ASL interpreter if desired.

Did Runnells make it clear he was going to show up with an interpreter and do we know that this was a professional and not a friend helping out?  If not, besides confidentiality, the SP would have had no way to know if the interpreter was conveying the correct sense of his and others' words and in fact a nonprofessional ASL interpreter might have gotten in the way of good communication.  

 

Edited April 26, 2016 by Calm

[ALarson]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't know how remarkable it was, but i agree that it was for the best and it was him taking control of his life.  Now he can leave the "victim of his stake president" narrative behind and move forward.

I agree (and I hope you noted that you were not actually quoting me, but that was a quote I had posted from someone else.  Just clarifying.)

I wouldn't have used the word "remarkable", but feel that Runnells choosing to resign is understandable.

.

Edited April 26, 2016 by ALarson

[cinepro]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

http://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/flip-the-script-the-how-and-why-of-jeremy-runnells-exit/

Maybe this has been posted already.  

Maybe it's just me, but I am continually baffled by the psychology of some people.  That entire article is all about the steps to take in a convoluted process of discipline and separation from the Church, all in an effort to not let the Church have "control".

 

Quote

If you are excommunicated from the church, then you are allowing the church to control your narrative for the rest of your life.

 

 

Quote

Until they themselves distance themselves from the control of the church it is almost inescapable.

 

 

Quote

the Church still gets the parting shot of controlling the narrative of your exit.

 

 

Quote

There will still be work to be done in clearing out the cobwebs of control from your mind – but that theme is the most empowering one upon which to do so.

 

Now, I'm no psychologist, but I didn't have to read very far in that essay to figure out that the process being described isn't helping people escape from the "control" of the Church.  If that's what you want to do, here is how you do it:

How To Escape the Control of the Church:

1. Stop going to Church

2. Formally resign your membership via letter.  Let the Church leaders know you aren't interested in phone calls and visits.

3. Stop talking about the Church (in person and online).  If friends or family try to discuss it, explain that you've moved on and talk about something else.  If the conversation focuses on a part of the Church that you would enjoy talking about without any psychological or social ill effects, then join in the conversation and enjoy it.

4. Recognize that your family and friends may talk about Church if that is something that still interests them.  Treat it the same way you treat friends and family who discuss sports teams, hobbies or movies that you are not interested in.  Change the subject, fake interest, sit quietly until the subject changes to something you are interested in, or leave to find something people with something more interesting to talk about.  This is Basic Social Interactions 101.

5. Stop thinking about the Church.  Find some other philosophies and hobbies that you can devote your mental and physical energies to.

6. Enjoy a life free from Church control.

 

That doesn't seem very hard to figure out, and I'm a little embarrassed for them that someone has to point out the obvious.  Sure, things can get complicated if you have an LDS wife and kids that want to continue going to Church, but nothing in that blog post helps in that regard.  Constructing a convoluted (and ultimately meaningless) dance between you and the local leadership doesn't help free you from Church "control" it just wastes your time, their time, and makes you look silly.

Edited April 26, 2016 by cinepro

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, cinepro said:

Maybe it's just me, but I am continually baffled by the psychology of some people.  That entire article is all about the steps to take in a convoluted process of discipline and separation from the Church, all in an effort to not let the Church have "control".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, I'm no psychologist, but I didn't have to read very far in that essay to figure out that the process being described isn't helping people escape from the "control" of the Church.  If that's what you want to do, here is how you do it:

How To Escape the Control of the Church:

1. Stop going to Church

2. Formally resign your membership via letter.  Let the Church leaders know you aren't interested in phone calls and visits.

3. Stop talking about the Church (in person and online).  If friends or family try to discuss it, explain that you've moved on and talk about something else.  If the conversation focuses on a part of the Church that you would enjoy talking about with any psychological or social ill effects, then join in the conversation and enjoy it.

4. Stop thinking about the Church.  Find some other philosophies and hobbies that you can devote your mental and physical energies to.

5. Enjoy a life free from Church control.

 

That doesn't seem very hard to figure out.  Obviously things can get complicated if you have an LDS wife and kids that want to continue going to Church, but nothing in that blog post helps in that regard.  Constructing a convoluted (and ultimately meaningless) dance between you and the local leadership doesn't help free you from Church "control" it just wastes your time, their time, and makes you look silly.

I'll have to reread this article, I was on my way to work and didn't have a chance to go over it.  Thanks for the heads up!

[USU78]

21 hours ago, Gray said:

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

Are you accusing the stake president, his counselors, the stake clerk and stake high council of violating the priest/penitent seal?

This is quite an important question, so I'd appreciate hearing exactly what it is you're saying here.