Popular Post flameburns623 Posted August 9, 2017 Popular Post Posted August 9, 2017 Tomorrow, or this week, or next month, or at some future date, Br. Hamula may come forth with a bombshell revelation about the LDS Church which shows that the statement about this matter is "not about apostasy" was public relations window dressing. OR, conversely, it may emerge that Br. Hamula was removed for cause of moral turpitude such as commonly leads to separation from almost any institution which has a reputation to uphold. For the moment, I will set aside speculation until more information is forthcoming. Meanwhile, Br. Hamula and his friends and family affected most directly are in my prayers. 7
Duncan Posted August 9, 2017 Author Posted August 9, 2017 5 minutes ago, blueglass said: 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? first I heard of it! who knows!
Atheist Mormon Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 8 minutes ago, Duncan said: no, why would say that? it's hard to swallow a general authority getting exed, but i'll get over it Comeon Duncan...Where do you live? Even with this bad news I don't mind to have 99% success record.
Duncan Posted August 9, 2017 Author Posted August 9, 2017 Just now, Atheist Mormon said: Comeon Duncan...Where do you live? Even with this bad news I don't mind to have 99% success record. I live where Winnie the Pooh comes from
strappinglad Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 100 years ago , hearing that a friend's child had died was sad but almost an accepted happenstance for the times. During the first couple of decades of Church History, the excommunication of apostles/GAs was quite common. As the Church matured such was less and less common. Now the excommunication of a GA is very rare. Similarly the death of a child for some disease is so rare that often it is at least regional news. There are movements afoot which may bring back higher levels of child death ... and higher levels of GA ex-ing. Would t'were not so. 1
Tacenda Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 (edited) 16 minutes ago, flameburns623 said: Tomorrow, or this week, or next month, or at some future date, Br. Hamula may come forth with a bombshell revelation about the LDS Church which shows that the statement about this matter is "not about apostasy" was public relations window dressing. OR, conversely, it may emerge that Br. Hamula was removed for cause of moral turpitude such as commonly leads to separation from almost any institution which has a reputation to uphold. For the moment, I will set aside speculation until more information is forthcoming. Meanwhile, Br. Hamula and his friends and family affected most directly are in my prayers. If it were really for not believing in the church any longer, I would be pretty upset that the church framed it that way. That's a big "if" though. Because I think it would be far worse if people now speculate as to what he would have done wrong to warrant an excommunication. ETA: I also think it's pretty bad the church announced it, and it's all over the news. It should have been private. Edited August 9, 2017 by Tacenda
flameburns623 Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 (edited) 51 minutes ago, Tacenda said: If it were really for not believing in the church any longer, I would be pretty upset that the church framed it that way. That's a big "if" though. Because I think it would be far worse if people now speculate as to what he would have done wrong to warrant an excommunication. It "COULD BE" for something indirectly related to "apostasy or personal doubts": pushing too hard/direspectfully for changes in policy based on those doubts, stealing/leaking information based on said doubts, yada, yada. IOW, not "for apostasy", but for inappropriate conduct borne of such surmised apostasy. BUT THAT IS ALL SPECULATIVE . We just don't know anything. Except that this guy has people close to him who are almost certainly in great pain right now, no matter why he's out. Still suggesting that they, and he, deserve our love and prayers. Edited August 9, 2017 by flameburns623
Johnnie Cake Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 22 minutes ago, flameburns623 said: It "COULD BE" for something indirectly related to "apostasy or personal doubts": pushing too hard/direspectfully for changes is policy based on those doubts, stealing/leaking information based on said doubts, yada, yada. IOW, not "for apostasy", but for inappropriate conduct borne of such surmised apostasy. BUT THAT IS ALL SPECULATIVE . We just don't know anything. Except that this guy has people close to him who are almost certainly in great pain right now, no matter why he's out. Still suggesting that they, and he, deserve our love and prayers. I just read on another board...someone claiming to know the family and is close to the situation is also claiming that he was exed due to involvement with a "woman". Take it for what it's worth...but my sources usually prove correct
Scott Lloyd Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said: Why? Should people be around you fool proof? Why talking like Yoda are you? 3
cdowis Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 (edited) 8 hours ago, Duncan said: 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 General Authorities have a plastic recommend card similar in appearance to a credit card. It is permanent and is not subject to periodic renewal like a regular recommend. Edited August 9, 2017 by cdowis
Scott Lloyd Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 27 minutes ago, cdowis said: General Authorities have a plastic recommend card similar in appearance to a credit card. It is permanent and is not subject to periodic renewal like a regular recommend. Makes sense, but a friendly CFR.
clarkgoble Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 4 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 Never read the comments sections at newspapers or YouTube.
Popular Post Storm Rider Posted August 9, 2017 Popular Post Posted August 9, 2017 (edited) Frankly, boy and girls, I am more than disgusted with the guessing of reasons for this human's excommunication from the Church. I find it prurient and discouraging on a site that is supposed to be frequented by mostly LDS. What does it matter why this poor fellow was excommunicated? The only salient issue is that he has been separated from the Kingdom of God. How terribly sad he must be given his own knowledge of the gospel. But for the grace of God each of us could be found in the same position. Cease the guessing for the reason. Angels weep when the least is lost how much more when those who have progressed so far in knowledge and understanding lose their way? Edited August 9, 2017 by Storm Rider 7
deli_llama Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 6 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: Frankly, boy and girls, I am more than disgusted with the guessing of reasons for the human's excommunication from the Church. I find it prurient and discouraging on a site that is supposed to be frequented by mostly LDS. What does it matter why the poor fellow was excommunicated? The only salient issue is that he has be separated from the Kingdom of God. How terribly sad he must be given his own knowledge of the gospel. But for the grace of God each of us could be found in the same position. Cease the guessing for the reason. Angels weep when the least is lost how much more when those who have progressed so far in knowledge and understanding? Appreciate the sanity and the reminder.
Robert F. Smith Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 2 hours ago, Rich Hansen said: Good to know that apostasy is not a sin. A disagreement about whether the LDS Church is the only true church, or that this or that doctrine is correct or false, may constitute nothing more than an honest difference of opinion. We might call it heresy, and may excommunicate as an exercise in boundary maintenance, but that is not the same as excommunicating for the sins of adultery, theft, and the like. Three is a difference, Rich. We have many friends and associates on this board who do not share the view that the Mormonism is the true faith. Yet we somehow manage to be cordial, respectful, and kind to one another. We realize that, in the real world, there may be a vast range of differences of opinion among honest people. Those who were once LDS may simply have resigned from the Church. We should wish them well in their newly chosen path. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 5 hours ago, JulieM said: I think Lee was excommunicated for apostasy (iirc). Yes, but primarily for pedophilia. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Yes, but primarily for pedophilia. I don't think that came to light until much later, Bob. 2
rockpond Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Did you not read the "Mormon Newsroom" quotation in the Deseret News story? That policy is not absolute. This is a case where misinformation -- the rumor that apostasy had been the reason -- would harm the membership of the Church. 3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: 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 hours ago, Freedom said: 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. All we've heard for years regarding disciplinary councils is that the church does not comment publicly. Now that they feel the desire to comment publicly on church discipline, we learn that in rare cases exceptions can be made. Who determines when those exceptions can be made? The Brethren. This is the definition of self-serving. It serves the interest of protecting the church and its members over following a policy that was put in place to protect the individual. Is it the wrong thing for the church to do? Does it mean the church is acting like a cult? I think that is for individuals to judge. My perspective is that there is not enough information available to judge either side as being in the wrong.
Robert F. Smith Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 (edited) 7 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 In some cases it may be appropriate to make the reasons public -- may serve the public interest. For example, when someone is engaged in serial sex abuse of children. The community needs to be warned. You seem dedicated to the notion that the Brethren are a bunch of rascals who will stoop to any kind of skulduggery to serve themselves. No honesty there at all? Is that how you like to be evaluated? Are those who do not share your views automatically immoral bounders? Should we be more gracious in our appraisals of one another? Edited August 9, 2017 by Robert F. Smith 4
Robert F. Smith Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don't think that came to light until much later, Bob. Probably true, Scott. I had thought there were rumors early on, but my memory fails me.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 3 minutes ago, rockpond said: All we've heard for years regarding disciplinary councils is that the church does not comment publicly. No, that's not all we've heard. There are exceptions. If you think otherwise, you haven't been paying attention. 3
Scott Lloyd Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Probably true, Scott. I had thought there were rumors early on, but my memory fails me. If there were, they were not made public. I clearly remember the day his excommunication was announced. I had been working for the Church News for several years by then. He was defiant toward the Brethren because he didn't like how they were treating the Indian people. The excommunication charge was heresy and apostasy. On the same day he came across the street and gave an interview to the Tribune trashing the Church leaders. It was years later that he was arrested in connection with sex crimes. I remember how shocking that was. Edited August 9, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 2
Robert F. Smith Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: If there were, they were not made public. I clearly remember the day his excommunication was announced. I had been working for the Church News for several years by then. He was defiant toward the Brethren because he didn't like how they were treating the Indian people. The excommunication charge was heresy and apostasy. On the same day he came across the street and gave an interview to the Tribune trashing the Church leaders. It was years later that he was arrested in connection with sex crimes. I remember how shocking that was. Yes, and there were some retrospective articles about it all.
Duncan Posted August 9, 2017 Author Posted August 9, 2017 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: If there were, they were not made public. I clearly remember the day his excommunication was announced. I had been working for the Church News for several years by then. He was defiant toward the Brethren because he didn't like how they were treating the Indian people. The excommunication charge was heresy and apostasy. It was years later that he was arrested in connection with sex crimes. I remember how shocking that was. correct me if I am wrong but i was a little fuzzy in the timeline for all that . It seemed like he got exed for conduct unbecoming of a church member in 1989 and what you said about his views on how the Church leaders viewed native Americans and he wrote some big letter and everything. Then in like the early 1990's it got revealed that he was involved with a youngster, so it was like did he do that after the whole excommunication situation or was that the real reason he was excommunicated? I guess, what did the First Presidency know and when?
Robert F. Smith Posted August 9, 2017 Posted August 9, 2017 2 hours ago, Duncan said: I live where Winnie the Pooh comes from And round about, and round about, and round about we go . . . 1
Recommended Posts