JulieM Posted August 8, 2017 Posted August 8, 2017 6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Ordinarily, the decision remains confidential, but not necessarily. From Tad Walch's Deseret News story: 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. Ok, I get that and it does make sense (especially considering the positions he held with the church history department and correlation). I can see why they may want to clarify. Thanks
Amulek Posted August 8, 2017 Posted August 8, 2017 2 hours 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 could have been any number of things. There are more ways to sin than can be numbered. To be honest, I don't particularly care to know the specifics; that should be between him and his priesthood leaders. Hopefully, he will complete the repentance process and come back into full fellowship with the Saints.
Johnnie Cake Posted August 8, 2017 Posted August 8, 2017 1 hour ago, Gray said: Hopefully the exact reason is not leaked. It would be nice not to know. True its no body's business and yet the church felt it was important to disclose that it wasn't for apostasy...seems self serving
The Nehor Posted August 8, 2017 Posted August 8, 2017 2 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: True its no body's business and yet the church felt it was important to disclose that it wasn't for apostasy...seems self serving No, not really.
JulieM Posted August 8, 2017 Posted August 8, 2017 3 hours 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 Was it a 70 that Grant Palmer claimed to be meeting with and supposedly getting inside information (confidential info about the twelve)? Or am I remembering wrong?
Johnnie Cake Posted August 8, 2017 Posted August 8, 2017 1 minute ago, The Nehor said: No, not really. How so?
The Nehor Posted August 8, 2017 Posted August 8, 2017 Just now, Johnnie Cake said: How so? It does not seem self-serving.
ksfisher Posted August 8, 2017 Posted August 8, 2017 4 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: True its no body's business and yet the church felt it was important to disclose that it wasn't for apostasy...seems self serving If they hadn't wouldn't there be people going through his conference talks right now looking for evidence of apostasy?
ksfisher Posted August 8, 2017 Posted August 8, 2017 Just now, ksfisher said: If they hadn't wouldn't there be people going through his conference talks right now looking for evidence of apostasy? Which may be the first time a long time that some of those people had read a conference talk. 1
ksfisher Posted August 8, 2017 Posted August 8, 2017 3 minutes ago, JulieM said: Was it a 70 that Grant Palmer claimed to be meeting with and supposedly getting inside information (confidential info about the twelve)? Or am I remembering wrong? My memory says that his still yet to be named source was a 70.
Johnnie Cake Posted August 8, 2017 Posted August 8, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, The Nehor said: oes not seem self-serving. The church has been consistent (in the past) of stating that church courts are confidential matters between the person and the court. and yet here we have an example where they have completely disregarded that policy and purposely disclosed details of the court that serves their interests...by eliminating from consideration (from a very short list I might add) what he could have been excommunicated for. It absolutely serves the interest of the church for word to get out that he wasn't exed for apostasy. Edited August 8, 2017 by Johnnie Cake
The Nehor Posted August 8, 2017 Posted August 8, 2017 2 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: The church ahs been consistent (in the past) of stating that church courts are confidential matters between the person and the court. and yet here we have an example where they have completely disregarded that policy and purposely disclosed details of the court that serves their interests...by eliminating from consideration (from a very short list I might add) what he could have been excommunicated for. It absolutely serves the interest of the church for word to get out that he wasn't exed for apostasy. No, the church has commented in the past on excommunications saying they were not done for specific reasons. Apostasy is also not the worst reason. If they wanted to be self-serving they could say that no predatory sexual activity or violence was involved. 3
clarkgoble Posted August 8, 2017 Posted August 8, 2017 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: True its no body's business and yet the church felt it was important to disclose that it wasn't for apostasy...seems self serving Unless it was to protect people he might talk to. There are pretty strong hints, particularly in the DesNews report, that there's something more to this. "In rare cases the decision of a disciplinary council may be shared publicly to prevent others from being harmed through misinformation" the DesNews notes. Given the details of Lee's excommunication that came out in the 1993 Trib expose this really seems serious. Edited August 8, 2017 by clarkgoble
ksfisher Posted August 8, 2017 Posted August 8, 2017 3 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: The church has been consistent (in the past) of stating that church courts are confidential matters between the person and the court. and yet here we have an example where they have completely disregarded that policy and purposely disclosed details of the court that serves their interests...by eliminating from consideration (from a very short list I might add) what he could have been excommunicated for. It absolutely serves the interest of the church for word to get out that he wasn't exed for apostasy. One of the purposes of church discipline "to protect the good name of the church." The announcement made accomplishes this while at the same time protecting the confidentiality of those involved. The policy of confidentiality has not been disregarded and no details of the court, other than the name of the church member for whom the court was held, have been disclosed. And as I mentioned earlier, there are provisions in the handbook that allow the announcement of the name for whom a church court was held and the decision reached by that court to be announced.
rongo Posted August 8, 2017 Posted August 8, 2017 This is very sad and tragic. Elder Hamula presided at a stake conference years ago, and I like him a lot. He was a member of my ward's stake president when he was baptized, and he thinks the world of him. Very sad. Notwithstanding the logic of critics that the Church's statement that this wasn't apostasy-related indicates that it was apostasy-related, it seems clear to me that this was for a law of chastity violation. The Church sees the need to make it clear that it wasn't apostasy-related because many people hope for or are worried about high-level defections. For those who decry the Church saying anything as betraying confidentiality, when people of high-enough positions are disciplined, there is bound to be talk/speculation, and something has to be said. I'm shocked and saddened, but I don't think at all that he is (as some are speculating) Grant Palmer's alleged GA source, or the source of the leaks (the leaks would have been a lot better if that were the case --- and more recent ). I do wonder if he forfeits his GA stipend? 2
JLHPROF Posted August 8, 2017 Posted August 8, 2017 26 minutes ago, rongo said: I do wonder if he forfeits his GA stipend? I certainly hope so. We should not be paying non-members.
Robert F. Smith Posted August 8, 2017 Posted August 8, 2017 4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: ............................................. 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. The article says that it was not for apostasy or disillusionment, so it is probably sin-based, as for Brother Lee many years ago. The same problem crops up from time to time for stake presidents and bishops. This is to be expected.
rockpond Posted August 8, 2017 Posted August 8, 2017 58 minutes ago, The Nehor said: It does not seem self-serving. I think that it does come across as self-serving to the institution because disillusionment or apostasy reflect back on the church. A sexual sin* reflects more on the weakness of the individual. *Why would I jump to sexual sin? Well, if you look at the possible reasons for excommunication, they distill down to apostasy, sexual transgression, and crime. The Church decided to eliminate apostasy from that short list. I imagine that if he committed a crime worthy of excommunication, it would have been reported. So that kinda narrows it down. Unfortunately. My condolences to Brother Hamula. 1
Johnnie Cake Posted August 8, 2017 Posted August 8, 2017 59 minutes ago, ksfisher said: One of the purposes of church discipline "to protect the good name of the church." The announcement made accomplishes this while at the same time protecting the confidentiality of those involved. The policy of confidentiality has not been disregarded and no details of the court, other than the name of the church member for whom the court was held, have been disclosed. And as I mentioned earlier, there are provisions in the handbook that allow the announcement of the name for whom a church court was held and the decision reached by that court to be announced. But they sure wanted everyone to know that he wasn't ex'ed due to him losing his testimony...can't have that on the table...again having this info out in the public purview serves the churches needs. "These are not the droids you are looking for"
blueglass Posted August 8, 2017 Posted August 8, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Ordinarily, the decision remains confidential, but not necessarily. From Tad Walch's Deseret News story: 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. i think many people will still assume it was due to "disillusionment or apostasy" for sure - else why would he violently light a fire to his covenants? Under 6.7.3, the list includes: 1) murder, 2) incest , 3) sex abuse of a child, and 4) apostasy. If it were none of these four then "Serious transgression while holding a prominent church position" could bring to the table the 6.7.2 list. Interesting that the 6.7.2 list matches up pretty well with the Jesus' list of defilement from Mark 7:19-23, "What comes out of a person is what defiles him. 21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.” Edited August 8, 2017 by blueglass
blueglass Posted August 8, 2017 Posted August 8, 2017 (edited) duplicate how to delete? Edited August 8, 2017 by blueglass
Johnnie Cake Posted August 8, 2017 Posted August 8, 2017 15 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: The article says that it was not for apostasy or disillusionment, so it is probably sin-based, as for Brother Lee many years ago. The same problem crops up from time to time for stake presidents and bishops. This is to be expected. Thank you for confirming my earlier statement....having the reasons for his excommunication coming down to sin based reasons serves the churches desire. They do not want any believer to conclude that there is anything in the official narrative of the church that could lead a GA to conclude that it is all made up....there fore they put that message out there in the public so that NO One draws that conclusion...again self serving.
Oliblish Posted August 8, 2017 Posted August 8, 2017 Can you really get excommunicated for disillusionment? I have never heard of anyone being excommunicated because of disillusionment.
JulieM Posted August 8, 2017 Posted August 8, 2017 22 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: The article says that it was not for apostasy or disillusionment, so it is probably sin-based, as for Brother Lee many years ago. The same problem crops up from time to time for stake presidents and bishops. This is to be expected. I think Lee was excommunicated for apostasy (iirc).
Calm Posted August 8, 2017 Posted August 8, 2017 (edited) 4 hours 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)? Probably to avoid speculation he was the leak or was one of the leakers. Edited August 9, 2017 by Calm
Recommended Posts