A General Authority excommunicated?

[Scott Lloyd]

Elder Hamula does not fit the profile of Grant Palmer's alleged shadowy General Authority informant. See the summary here by Jeff Lindsay of Palmer's tale.

[Johnnie Cake]

I can't believe that I'm actually defending the church in the comments section of the Washington Post...related to this news...arrrrrgggggg 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/08/08/mormon-leader-ousted-first-excommunication-of-one-of-its-leaders-in-decades/?utm_term=.bb77011667ea#comments

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, Oliblish said:

Can you really get excommunicated for disillusionment?  I have never heard of anyone being excommunicated because of disillusionment.

Not for disillusionment, no. But one who was disillusioned could willfully renounce his faith; i.e. apostatize.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

I think what was quoted there was boilerplate, a reporter trying to anticipate and answer readers' questions. There's no particular reason to infer that it pertains in any specific sense to Elder Hamula.

[JulieM]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Elder Hamula does not fit the profile of Grant Palmer's alleged shadowy General Authority informant. See the summary here by Jeff Lindsay of Palmer's tale.

Other forums are posting that the timeline fits.  But I haven't looked anything up nor do I know many details about what Palmer stated (other than it was supposedly a 70).

[stemelbow]

He was supposed to come speak at us for our stake conference this weekend I hear.  

[rockpond]

28 minutes ago, Oliblish said:

Can you really get excommunicated for disillusionment?  I have never heard of anyone being excommunicated because of disillusionment.

I think that by "disillusionment" they are implying loss of testimony or faith in the church.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

Other forums are posting that the timeline fits.  But I haven't looked anything up nor do I know many details about what Palmer stated (other than it was supposedly a 70).

Go to the link I provided and scroll down. There's this:

Quote

 

For starters, here is a helpful comment offered on one of my posts where a critic cited Palmer’s story:

Grant Palmer is blowing smoke. He talks about a current member of the First Quorum of Seventy (FQS) who was familiar with how things worked when there was only one quorum of seventy. Number of current members of the FQS who were members when there was only one quorum: 0

Based on Palmer’s memorandum, certainly this mysterious GA would have been a GA before the area seventy quorums were called in April 1995, right? FQS members called before April 1995:

Carlos Amado (based in Central America)
Claudio Costa (based in Brazil)
John ****son (based in West Africa)

So which of these three GAs, based in far flung corners of the world, is meeting with Palmer on a monthly basis? And that’s before we even get to how on earth this GA would be able to discern it takes 2-3 years for a new apostle to discover the church is not true, but it took DFU a bit longer. It would be hilarious if he wasn’t serious.

 

 

[Duncan]

2 hours 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?

yeah, he set these parameters as to who, as I recall, but they fit very few if any so it seemed higgledy piggledy and I hate to say but he was teasing the audience about insider info that apparently was no one. I think he was supposed to identify this person or this person was supposed to leave the Church soon or something?

Edited August 8, 2017 by Duncan

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

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.

you could also get exed for spending tithing/fasting money, maybe he did some financial hooliganism? or something he did in his past or paid for an abortion or something. 

[Storm Rider]

5 hours 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

Duncan, the lesson needs to be learned repeatedly - they are as human as you; they fall, they repent of sins, and they strive to overcome their weaknesses and failings.  God's dealings with humanity have a long history of his use of the weakest of vessels to accomplish his work.  Peter, sat the the feet the of the Savior, was instructed in the mysteries of heaven and yet he denied the Savior three times.  Does the sinful nature of a man surprise me today?  No, I am sorry to say that it does not.  I feel deep sorrow for him and his family and pray for his quick return to the Iron Rod. 

[Freedom]

2 hours 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

You make it sound like this is a bad thing. An organization has the right and the responsibility to protect its good name. To you, everything is a conspiracy. 

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Duncan said:

you could also get exed for spending tithing/fasting money, maybe he did some financial hooliganism? or something he did in his past or paid for an abortion or something. 

True.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Freedom said:

You make it sound like this is a bad thing. An organization has the right and the responsibility to protect its good name. To you, everything is a conspiracy. 

Johnnie Cake (and I) didn't say it was a conspiracy.  We said that it was self-serving for the church to add that clarification when normally they do not comment on disciplinary actions.

Your implication that the church was protecting its good name supports what we said.  The institution is protecting itself at the sacrifice of a certain degree of privacy normally offered to members facing discipline.  I don't question the Church's right to make such a statement but I do consider it self-serving.

 

[Bobbieaware]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Johnnie Cake (and I) didn't say it was a conspiracy.  We said that it was self-serving for the church to add that clarification when normally they do not comment on disciplinary actions.

Your implication that the church was protecting its good name supports what we said.  The institution is protecting itself at the sacrifice of a certain degree of privacy normally offered to members facing discipline.  I don't question the Church's right to make such a statement but I do consider it self-serving.

 

Have any of you knee-jerk critics stopped to consider the likely possibility that it was it was James Hamula who wanted it known he wasn't excommunicated for apostasy? If this is so, rather than being self-serving the announcement is an act of compassion for someone the leaders still love and respect as a fellow believer.

[blueglass]

6 hours 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

Hamula may have shown sympathy for the remnant movement - privately, and then a friend leaked the information.  

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Have any of you knee-jerk critics stopped to consider the likely possibility that it was it was James Hamula who wanted it known he wasn't excommunicated for apostasy? If this is so, rather than being self-serving the announcement is an act of compassion for someone the leaders still love and respect as a fellow believer.

I'm neither knee-jerking nor a critic.  If you want to dialogue without name calling, I'm game.  Otherwise, don't expect a response.

I do accept that as a possibility.  It's what my father, who has interacted with Elder Hamula for church callings, thinks may have happened.  If true, it would have been an act of extreme sacrifice by Elder Hamula and a noble gesture by someone who loves the church.

But, that doesn't change what I've written previously.  It's self-serving because the Church is failing to follow a long-held policy to protect itself... even if the request came from Elder Hamula.

Personally, I doubt that scenario to be the case because Elder Hamula could have made such an announcement on his own without asking the Church leadership to violate their own policy.

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Hamula may have shown sympathy for the remnant movement - privately, and then a friend leaked the information.  

and what is the remnant movement? are they group that goes around mutilating squirrels?

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Hamula may have shown sympathy for the remnant movement - privately, and then a friend leaked the information.  

Wouldn't sympathy for the Remnant be considered apostasy?  I mean, if it rose to the level of causing an excommunication -- it seems like such sympathy would have to have been considered apostasy.

And if he was showing sympathy for Denver Snuffer's teachings/testimony, it seems unlikely that the Brethren would pronounce that his excommunication was NOT for apostasy or disillusionment.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

and what is the remnant movement? are they group that goes around mutilating squirrels?

See:  Denver Snuffer.

[rongo]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

I do accept that as a possibility.  It's what my father, who has interacted with Elder Hamula for church callings, thinks may have happened.  If true, it would have been an act of extreme sacrifice by Elder Hamula and a noble gesture by someone who loves the church.

I also think that Elder Hamula himself requested or at least supports public announcement that he has been excommunicated. And, that it wasn't for apostasy.

But, that doesn't change what I've written previously.  It's self-serving because the Church is failing to follow a long-held policy to protect itself... even if the request came from Elder Hamula.

I think the Church is arguably protecting itself by announcing that it wasn't for apostasy (as opposed to letting speculation percolate).

Personally, I doubt that scenario to be the case because Elder Hamula could have made such an announcement on his own without asking the Church leadership to violate their own policy.

I don't think that the Church is violating confidentiality at all by a) announcing his excommunication, and b) eliminating a speculative possibility. 

There is still all the range of possibilities in the world (sexual, financial, and others) that it had no comment on. There are exactly no details available at all, other than that it wasn't a matter of a GA betraying the Church or working against it. I think nipping that in the bud is important, and taking that off the speculation table doesn't harm Elder Hamula. If anything, it helps him.

[blueglass]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think what was quoted there was boilerplate, a reporter trying to anticipate and answer readers' questions. There's no particular reason to infer that it pertains in any specific sense to Elder Hamula.

a boilerplate written to deal with the dehlin excommunication drama.

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Have any of you knee-jerk critics stopped to consider the likely possibility that it was it was James Hamula who wanted it known he wasn't excommunicated for apostasy? If this is so, rather than being self-serving the announcement is an act of compassion for someone the leaders still love and respect as a fellow believer.

It's not self-serving in any event. It's serving rank-and-file members of the Church who have the right to the assurance that apostasy was not the reason for the fall of a high-ranking Church leader, though that probably irritates some to realize they can't use speculation to that effect as a weapon in their arsenal.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

I think the Church is arguably protecting itself by announcing that it wasn't for apostasy (as opposed to letting speculation percolate).

I apologize for my poorly worded sentence THIS (what you wrote above) is what I was trying to say.

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

See:  Denver Snuffer.

oh him