A General Authority excommunicated?

[Robert F. Smith]

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

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?

If the Brethren did not have the kind of evidence which could hold up in a criminal prosecution, they might have had to say very little in order to prevent a huge lawsuit for libel.  Victims often refuse to testify, in addition to which the notoriety may do great damage to the youngster.

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

And round about, and round about, and round about we go . . .

thanks for noticing me..................

[rockpond]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No, that's not all we've heard. There are exceptions. If you think otherwise, you haven't been paying attention. 

Care to share some examples of what you believe I have missed?

[Robert F. Smith]

Just now, Duncan said:

thanks for noticing me..................

Christopher Robin always notices H. Edward Bear

Going thump, thump, thump down the stair.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, and there were some retrospective articles about it all.

True. Some disturbing things that happened while he was a GA. 

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If the Brethren did not have the kind of evidence which could hold up in a criminal prosecution, they might have had to say very little in order to prevent a huge lawsuit for libel.  Victims often refuse to testify, in addition to which the notoriety may do great damage to the youngster.

i'm sure they turned over any and all sexual allegations to the police and if someone came to the police saying a General Authority did this they would go to the leadership

[Duncan]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

True. Some disturbing things that happened while he was a GA. 

I have an autobiography of a GA and I think around 1980 he'd been investigated for some things he was saying that were amiss but what specifically the author didn't delve into it 

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Care to share some examples of what you believe I have missed?

I guess the most recent one I can think of was Dehlin's.   He was bleeting about having been kicked out for favoring same-sex "marriage," so the stake president had to set the record straight. 

I just finished posting about George P. Lee. The reason was announced, but it was he who disclosed the details. 

Ive acknowledged that it happens rarely, but it happens. Which is what Mormon Newsroom said. Are you saying Mormon Newsroom is lying?

Edited August 9, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Robert F. Smith]

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

i'm sure they turned over any and all sexual allegations to the police and if someone came to the police saying a General Authority did this they would go to the leadership

Unfortunately, this did not hold true years ago.  The Roman Catholics and Mormons frequently failed to turn such miscreants over to the proper authorities, which led to some very large judgments for failure to do due diligence.  Policies have since changed, and even laws have been enacted requiring church officials, teachers, nurses, doctors, etc., to notify the police in the event of suspicion of abuse.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I have an autobiography of a GA and I think around 1980 he'd been investigated for some things he was saying that were amiss but what specifically the author didn't delve into it 

Are you talking about Lee now?

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Are you talking about Lee now?

yeah, I thought that was who we were talking about?!

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I guess the most recent one I can think of was Dehlin's. 

I just finished posting about George P. Lee. The reason was announced, but it was he who disclosed the details. 

Ive acknowledged that it happens rarely, but it happens. Which is what Mormon Newsroom said. Are you saying Mormon Newsroom is lying?

No, kindly read what I wrote - I certainly didn't say the Mormon Newsroom was lying.  But, this is a good reminder of why I try to avoid responding to you. 

What was disclosed regarding Dehlin's excommunication?  Was it the generic "apostasy and conduct unbecoming..." as was done with Lee?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

29 minutes ago, Duncan said:

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?

Yeah, all that sounds right. Except I remember there being an account of his involvement with one of his daughter's friends while he was traveling as a GA. I don't think the Brethren knew about any of the sex stuff until his arrest later. 

You're right about the "conduct unbecoming" charge. There was that and heresy, according to one source I saw today. I no longer think apostasy was one of the charges now that I reflect on it. 

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No, kindly read what I wrote - I certainly didn't say the Mormon Newsroom was lying.  But, this is a good reminder of why I try to avoid responding to you. 

What was disclosed regarding Dehlin's excommunication?  Was it the generic "apostasy and conduct unbecoming..." as was done with Lee?

 

Here you go. It's on Mormon Newsroom. And it's quite detailed. 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-to-john-dehlins-public-comments

Edited August 9, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, Duncan said:

yeah, I thought that was who we were talking about?!

OK. That squares with a rumor I'd heard at the time of his excommunication. 

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Here you go. It's on Mormon Newsroom. 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-to-john-dehlins-public-comments

From the link you provided:

"Such councils are always far better when all involved respect the principle of confidentiality. At the very least, this principle helps those members who wish to return to full fellowship at a later date. When the member has chosen to air their grievances in public, the Church reserves the right to correct the public record."

Councils are always better when all involved respect confidentiality.  Sounds like the Church defining their policy regarding disciplinary councils.

Elder Hamula hasn't aired his grievances publicly so there was nothing for the Church to correct. 

So they created an exception.  The exception also happens to allude to and defend against the issue of people leaving the church after becoming disillusioned when learning about doctrinal conflicts in our history.  And an exception that, for the most part, leads members to conclude that he had to have been involved in some form of adultery.  A tough thing for his family to deal with.  (This evening I watched two extremely faithful church members arrive at that conclusion during a church activity.)

[Freedom]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

 

 

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. 

You need to re-read the definition of self serving. According to you, someone who defends themselves against an ax wielding maniac is self serving, or someone who files a court action for defamation is self serving. Protecting ones interests is not by any stretch of the imagination self serving. Examples of self serving would be when, after a car accident, both parties involved blame the other driver for causing the crash, or inheriting some money and attributing it to the fact that you are the most beloved while ignoring the fact that you are the only living relative. 

Here is another definition: "A self-serving bias is any cognitive or perceptual process that is distorted by the need to maintain and enhance self-esteem, or the tendency to perceive oneself in an overly favorable manner.^[1] It is the belief that individuals tend to ascribe success to their own abilities and efforts, but ascribe failure to external factors"

A self serving leadership would not have excommunicated him but rather kept him in his role and ordered him to be silent to create the perception that the leadership are all in good standing with the lord. This has been the practice of pretty much every other christian religion - protecting the wicked leaders to self-serve the organization. our church acts on improprieties no matter how embarrassing it may be. Consider the Catholic church. When a priest or bishop is found guilty of rape, they simply transfer them to a different part of the world. The LDS church is anything but self serving when it comes to following the standards for excommunication. 

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Quote

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.

I also wonder if the Church anticipated a deluge of gossipy speculation about whether Elder Hamula's excommunication arose from charges of apostasy, and therefore sought to reduce that deluge a bit by providing clarification (with, I suspect, the consent - or even at the request - of Elder Hamula).

Have we seen any such speculation?  Hoo, boy, yes!  So the Church's clarification may not be as much a reflection on the Church, or on Elder Hamula, but on those who publicly gossip about such a painful and sensitive topic.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 9, 2017 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

From the link you provided:

"Such councils are always far better when all involved respect the principle of confidentiality. At the very least, this principle helps those members who wish to return to full fellowship at a later date. When the member has chosen to air their grievances in public, the Church reserves the right to correct the public record."

Councils are always better when all involved respect confidentiality.  Sounds like the Church defining their policy regarding disciplinary councils.

Elder Hamula hasn't aired his grievances publicly so there was nothing for the Church to correct. 

So they created an exception.  The exception also happens to allude to and defend against the issue of people leaving the church after becoming disillusioned when learning about doctrinal conflicts in our history.  And an exception that, for the most part, leads members to conclude that he had to have been involved in some form of adultery.  A tough thing for his family to deal with.  (This evening I watched two extremely faithful church members arrive at that conclusion during a church activity.)

The Church reserves the right to make exceptions and, as I said before, I believe the saints deserve to know that apostasy was not the reason that a high-level leader fell. 

An exception was warranted in this instance because it is so rare for General Authorities to be excommunicated and because they are so visible. 

In many ways they are held to a higher standard than the ordinary rank-and-file, and they know that when they accept the calling. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I also wonder if the Church anticipated a deluge of gossipy speculation about whether Elder Hamula's excommunication arose from charges of apostasy, and therefore sought to reduce that deluge a bit by providing clarification (with, I suspect, the consent - or even at the request - of Elder Hamula).

Have we seen any such speculation?  Hoo, boy, yes!  So the Church's clarification may not be as much a reflection on the Church, or on Elder Hamula, but on those who publicly gossip about such a painful and sensitive topic.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think that highly likely. 

Many would be salivating right now over the prospect of a GA apostatizing if they thought that were a possibility in this instance. 

Edited August 9, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Stargazer]

7 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

I take it that you contributed to the comments?  What tag/user name did you use?  

[Rain]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

 

 

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. 

Perhaps you have just missed the part about exceptions? I specifically remember hearing about the exception about 12-13 years ago in regards to a member of my stake, but I can't recall a time when I haven't known it. 

I do recognize that they do not always mention the exceptions when they talk about confidentiality.  They usually only mention the exceptions when there are exceptions.  

[Atheist Mormon]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why talking like Yoda are you?

No, no yoda here....You didn't understand what I wrote.. It was English....and a very simple phrase at that.

[Atheist Mormon]

10 hours ago, Duncan said:

I live where Winnie the Pooh comes from

OK, thanks for making me smile.

[Gray]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

I also wonder if the Church anticipated a deluge of gossipy speculation about whether Elder Hamula's excommunication arose from charges of apostasy, and therefore sought to reduce that deluge a bit by providing clarification (with, I suspect, the consent - or even at the request - of Elder Hamula).

 

Yes, it may very well be at his request.