A General Authority excommunicated?

[Duncan]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865686362/LDS-Church-leaders-release-excommunicate-Elder-James-J-Hamula.html

 

Is this for real? I am gobsmacked if it's true, truly gobsmacked

[HappyJackWagon]

13 minutes ago, Duncan said:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865686362/LDS-Church-leaders-release-excommunicate-Elder-James-J-Hamula.html

 

Is this for real? I am gobsmacked if it's true, truly gobsmacked

Yeah, just saw that. It's from Des News so I'm believing it is real.

I'm not a fan of excommunication so I feel badly for Elder Hamula and his family gaining such notoriety for this. It's been a while since there's been such a high ranking excommunication. I'd love to know the full story there if he ever decides to share it.

ETA- If it's merely a "sin" based excommunication...affair or the like, I have no interest in knowing what it's about, but it there is more to the story, that would be interesting.

Edited August 8, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[Duncan]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

Yeah, just saw that. It's from Des News so I'm believing it is real.

It's been a while since there's been such a high ranking excommunication. I'd love to know the full story there.

I don't even know what would he have done that was so bad? I get adultery, maybe? murder? it's blowing my mind 60 ways to sunday

[SteveO]

"The church confirmed that this action was not taken because of disillusionment or apostasy."

I think this is particularly important to know. 

I do remember hearing of a 70 that was excommunicated a number of years ago for molesting a young girl--I hope that's not the case here, but I do mention it to point out that GA's are capable of being stupid and making mistakes too.

[clarkgoble]

9 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I don't even know what would he have done that was so bad? I get adultery, maybe? murder? it's blowing my mind 60 ways to sunday

It's hard to say. The last major one was Lee which ostensibly was for his pet peeves and projects they termed apostasy although he later came out he was a pedophile. I think it was claimed that was part of the excommunication although if I recall that's not clear. If they are saying it wasn't apostasy then that means either adultery or something worse.

 

Edited August 8, 2017 by clarkgoble

[HappyJackWagon]

It says the First Presidency and Q12 convened the disciplinary council which raises a couple of questions for me.

1- If the prophet is incapacitated, who presides over the council? The FP 1st counselor or President of the Q12?

2- If all other DC's are held at the "local level" as is often claimed with no input or influence from upper leadership, why would Hamula's DC not be held by his Stake President? Is there a scriptural exception made for DC's for those at a high level?

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It says the First Presidency and Q12 convened the disciplinary council which raises a couple of questions for me.

1- If the prophet is incapacitated, who presides over the council? The FP 1st counselor or President of the Q12?

2- If all other DC's are held at the "local level" as is often claimed with no input or influence from upper leadership, why would Hamula's DC not be held by his Stake President? Is there a scriptural exception made for DC's for those at a high level?

1. 1st Counselor

2. Seventies (and apostles) are not subject to the discipline of local leadership. Their presiding leader is the presidency of the Seventy. Different chain of authority. The D&C gives instructions on disciplining apostles and even members of the First Presidency.

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

1. 1st Counselor

2. Seventies (and apostles) are not subject to the discipline of local leadership. Their presiding leader is the presidency of the Seventy. Different chain of authority. The D&C gives instructions on disciplining apostles and even members of the First Presidency.

don't they get their recommends from local leaders though? I know i've heard Pres. Hinckley say he has a Bishop and i'd assume everyone else does?

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

don't they get their recommends from local leaders though? I know i've heard Pres. Hinckley say he has a Bishop and i'd assume everyone else does?

I am going off an old memory but I believe apostles get a permanent non-expiring Recommend from the current Prophet when they are interviewed and ordained to the office.

[HappyJackWagon]

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

1. 1st Counselor

2. Seventies (and apostles) are not subject to the discipline of local leadership. Their presiding leader is the presidency of the Seventy. Different chain of authority. The D&C gives instructions on disciplining apostles and even members of the First Presidency.

Interesting. Do you have a D&C reference for that. The only one I can think of talks about local leadership

Quote

I am going off an old memory but I believe apostles get a permanent non-expiring Recommend from the current Prophet when they are interviewed and ordained to the office.

Interesting. I'm continually surprised by how little I know about the upper echelons of church government.

[The Nehor]

I would add I know that apostles are not required to show a Recommend to get into a temple at least in one case I know of. I was a worker at a temple when an apostle showed up unannounced. The 'by the book' guy at the desk did not recognize the apostle and insisted he needed a Recommend to get in. The apostle kindly told the Recommend desk guy to call the temple president to come to the desk. He did and the Temple President waved him in.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am going off an old memory but I believe apostles get a permanent non-expiring Recommend from the current Prophet when they are interviewed and ordained to the office.

They would still have a local ward they would attend and likely their spouses would be assigned to and get visiting and maybe home teachers from, so could speak 'their bishop' in that sense. (No personal knowledge, just thinking out loud)

Edited August 8, 2017 by Calm

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

I would add I know that apostles are not required to show a Recommend to get into a temple at least in one case I know of. I was a worker at a temple when an apostle showed up unannounced. The 'by the book' guy at the desk did not recognize the apostle and insisted he needed a Recommend to get in. The apostle kindly told the Recommend desk guy to call the temple president to come to the desk. He did and the Temple President waved him in.

I know that happened to Pres. Faust. IIRC he had some special looking recommend and the desk clerk didn't recognize him or the recommend so then Elder Faust left and took his family with him. I heard Elder Cree-L Kofford say one time that he was visiting a Temple and someone working there asked him what part of Georgia he was from. When he said he wasn't from Georgia he asked the guy why did you think I was from Georgia? the man said because at the book at the desk next to your name it said, "GA" dot dot dot

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Interesting. Do you have a D&C reference for that. The only one I can think of talks about local leadership

Interesting. I'm continually surprised by how little I know about the upper echelons of church government.

I am at work and do not have time to look it up. There is a section dedicated to how to try a member of the First Presidency and I assume this procedure is used for all apostles and seventies. Maybe the Presidency of the Seventy conducts the disciplinary hearing but I doubt it.

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

They would still have a local ward they would attend and likely their spouses would be assigned to and get visiting and maybe home teachers from, so could speak 'their bishop' in that sense. (No personal knowledge, just thinking out loud)

Yeah, they are free to counsel with the local bishop and can accept and receive home teaching assignments. Their spouses and family are within the local line of authority too.

[ksfisher]

22 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am at work and do not have time to look it up. There is a section dedicated to how to try a member of the First Presidency and I assume this procedure is used for all apostles and seventies. Maybe the Presidency of the Seventy conducts the disciplinary hearing but I doubt it.

From the article:

"The removal and excommunication of a general authority of the church is extremely rare, then, but when necessary, a disciplinary council for a senior LDS leader is comprised of members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve."

[The Nehor]

Just now, ksfisher said:

From the article:

"The removal and excommunication of a general authority of the church is extremely rare, then, but when necessary, a disciplinary council for a senior LDS leader is comprised of members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve."

Nice, I figured it worked that way for all general authorities but nice to get confirmation.

[Gray]

Hopefully the exact reason is not leaked. It would be nice not to know.

[ttribe]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

Hopefully the exact reason is not leaked. It would be nice not to know.

I would add, I truly hope it is nothing like the real reasons for George P. Lee's excommunication.  

[Boanerges]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

They would still have a local ward they would attend and likely their spouses would be assigned to and get visiting and maybe home teachers from, so could speak 'their bishop' in that sense. (No personal knowledge, just thinking out loud)

Another elder in my mission said he was assigned as a youth to HT a now dead Apostle. Where he is from fit, and he did seem legit, so I have no reason to think he was making it up.

I also am generally not in favor of excommunication but I also understand that the church sometimes sees no alternative. I do feel for the guy and his family. I liked his talk on the atonement and sacrament a couple years back. I also think it interesting, especially in these times, that they specifically noted it was not for apostasy. 

Hamula Oct. 2014

Edited August 8, 2017 by Boanerges

[JulieM]

24 minutes ago, Gray said:

Hopefully the exact reason is not leaked. It would be nice not to know.

I completely agree.  

I have to wonder though why they'd state what he was not excommunicated for.  That causes people to start narrowing it down and speculating as there are only so many offenses that can result in excommunication.  

Wouldn't that be confidential (what he wasn't excommunicated for)?

[USU78]

Sad that it has to be announced, but I cannot think of a way around it  ...  given what we probably already know from the way the announcement was worded.

And, no, I'm not putting voice to it.

[ksfisher]

8 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Wouldn't that be confidential (what he wasn't excommunicated for)?

There are provisions in the handbook that allow for the announcement of an excommunication.  I imagine that in this case it was felt that, although the exact reason is confidential, that it would be appropriate and beneficial to let members know that apostasy was not the reason. 

 

Edited August 8, 2017 by ksfisher

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Interesting. Do you have a D&C reference for that. The only one I can think of talks about local leadership

The First Presidency is not dissolved until the death of the Church president. Ergo, it stands to reason the members of the First Presidency would be higher in authority than the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in this and all other matters.

[Scott Lloyd]

28 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I completely agree.  

I have to wonder though why they'd state what he was not excommunicated for.  That causes people to start narrowing it down and speculating as there are only so many offenses that can result in excommunication.  

Wouldn't that be confidential (what he wasn't excommunicated for)?

Ordinarily, the decision remains confidential, but not necessarily.

From Tad Walch's Deseret News story:
 

Quote

 

"All church discipline is carried out in complete confidence," according to an article on the church's official Mormon Newsroom website. "Church leaders have a solemn responsibility to keep confidential all information they receive in confessions and interviews. To protect that confidence, the church will not discuss the proceedings of a disciplinary council."

"In rare cases," the article noted, "the decision of a disciplinary council may be shared publicly to prevent others from being harmed through misinformation."

 

I think it is appropriate for  members of the Church to know this was not due to disillusionment or apostasy, as speculation to that effect could affect some people's confidence in the Church and its teachings.