rockpond Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: 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. Yes, its serving the members... who *are* the church. What you've said here is exactly why I consider it to be self-serving to have departed from their own policy. Edited August 9, 2017 by rockpond 3
Scott Lloyd Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 8 minutes ago, rockpond said: 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. Did you not read the "Mormon Newsroom" quotation in the Deseret News story? That policy is not absolute. Quote "In rare cases," the article noted, "the decision of a disciplinary council may be shared publicly to prevent others from being harmed through misinformation." This is a case where misinformation -- the rumor that apostasy had been the reason -- would harm the membership of the Church. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 8 minutes ago, rockpond said: 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. Did you not read the "Mormon Newsroom" quotation in the Deseret News story? That policy is not absolute. Quote "In rare cases," the article noted, "the decision of a disciplinary council may be shared publicly to prevent others from being harmed through misinformation." This is a case where misinformation -- the rumor that apostasy had been the reason -- would harm the membership of the Church. 1
Johnnie Cake Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 (edited) 1 hour 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. I've exhausted my limited daily post...so I'll just leave this here. Some information from someone close to his family Quote He hasnt lost his faith. His Family is "devastated" "embarrassed". 2 oldest children of 6 are non-believers. That's all I know. I hope we can be a supportive group and not jump to too many conclusions like the Paul Swenson fiasco. Edited August 9, 2017 by Johnnie Cake
Johnnie Cake Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 31 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. But it wasn't Hamula who disclosed this tidbit was it...it was the church. Hamula, I'm sure can speak for himself...but seemingly the church felt the need to get in front of the story and help frame the conversation
Scott Lloyd Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 12 minutes ago, rockpond said: Yes, its serving the members... who *are* the church. What you've said here is exactly why I consider it to be self-serving to have departed from their own policy. Now you're just playing semantic games. If serving its own membership amounts to the Church being "self-serving," well, there's nothing wrong with that. Just the opposite, in fact. It is being responsible. 2
Calm Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 34 minutes ago, blueglass said: Hamula may have shown sympathy for the remnant movement - privately, and then a friend leaked the information. Are you speculating completely or do you have reason to believe this? This seems contrary to the announcement that it is not for apostasy or disillusionment. 1
Jeanne Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 1 hour 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. This was my second thought.
ksfisher Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 1 hour 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. Perhaps he disparaged a Canadian. 1
Bobbieaware Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 6 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: But it wasn't Hamula who disclosed this tidbit was it...it was the church. Hamula, I'm sure can speak for himself...but seemingly the church felt the need to get in front of the story and help frame the conversation This is an example of what the apostle Paul referres to as "evil surmisings." Did you stop to consider the possibility that James Hamula wanted the announcement made in the way it was because, at least for the time being, he has no desire to spill his guts to the world? Why of course not! Why give the leaders of the Church the benefit of the doubt when there are lots of juicy evil surmisings that need to be spread abroad? 1
Calm Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 37 minutes ago, blueglass said: a boilerplate written to deal with the dehlin excommunication drama. Do you have evidence for this or is it speculation?
Popular Post Bernard Gui Posted August 9, 2017 Popular Post Posted August 9, 2017 (edited) 3 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 He was my son Cellistino's mission president and very much beloved by him and the other elders in DC. For a time he served as his assistant. This will be a huge blow to them. Making it public in this way is not self-serving, but the proper thing to do. Hearing about it through rumor and hearsay would be cruel. I know that he would take them into consideration in making this public. Edited August 9, 2017 by Bernard Gui 6
rongo Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 51 minutes ago, rockpond said: I apologize for my poorly worded sentence THIS (what you wrote above) is what I was trying to say. That makes a lot more sense . . .
Duncan Posted August 9, 2017 Author Posted August 9, 2017 19 minutes ago, ksfisher said: Perhaps he disparaged a Canadian. lewd, lascivious, salacious, outrageous!
Bernard Gui Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: 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 Pretty disgusting comments, but not unlike those in the SL Tribune. The Church brings out the best and the worst in people it seems.
Atheist Mormon Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 (edited) 7 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 Why? Should people be around you fool proof? Edited August 9, 2017 by Atheist Mormon
Freedom Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 1 hour 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. I don't think 'self serving' means what you think it means: "preoccupied with one's own interests, often disregarding the truth or the interests, well-being, etc., of others." Calling the statement by the church self serving is akin to calling the church a cult. You are using a term with a very negative connotation and denotation to disparage the church for taking preemptive action to protect its good name and to prevent critics from spreading lies that would be harmful to both the church and to members. When in a position of great authority, you surrender a degree of privacy. We are not talking about a sunday school teacher here, we are talking about a general authority. 2
strappinglad Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 8 minutes ago, Duncan said: lewd, lascivious, salacious, outrageous! eh? There , fixed it for you . As for the OP, I know several people who struggle internally with sin/doubt/whatever. They put on a brave front and strive to be better than they know/think that they are. Some succeed, some seem to succeed, some fail. Cut the man some slack. Being human is a rough ride.
Freedom Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 34 minutes ago, ksfisher said: Perhaps he disparaged a Canadian. No, there is a procedure for dealing with this degree of treachery. Acts 5:5 1
Duncan Posted August 9, 2017 Author Posted August 9, 2017 11 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said: Why? Should people around you fool proof? what?
Duncan Posted August 9, 2017 Author Posted August 9, 2017 4 minutes ago, strappinglad said: There , fixed it for you . As for the OP, I know several people who struggle internally with sin/doubt/whatever. They put on a brave front and strive to be better than they know/think that they are. Some succeed, some seem to succeed, some fail. Cut the man some slack. Being human is a rough ride. I know all that, I was remarking how crazy it is to hear about a General Authority get exed, usually it's some ex member
Atheist Mormon Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 7 minutes ago, Duncan said: what? Should people around you (close ones) be fool proof to disappoint you?
Duncan Posted August 9, 2017 Author Posted August 9, 2017 2 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said: Should people around you (close ones) be fool proof to disappoint you? no, why would say that? it's hard to swallow a general authority getting exed, but i'll get over it
Rich Hansen Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 3 hours 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. Good to know that apostasy is not a sin.
blueglass Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 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 was exec dir of the church correlation Dept. What happened to the new 2018 curriculum? Will it be announced next week or last minute in December?
Recommended Posts