A General Authority excommunicated?

[rchorse]

As for the criticism that the church violated its own policies by giving information about what the discipline was NOT for, I'll just leave here this bit from Handbook 1, section 6.10.9, which discusses announcing church discipline:

Quote

No announcement is made if a decision is being appealed, unless the presiding officer of the disciplinary council concludes that an announcement pending appeal is necessary to protect potential victims, to support the healing of victims (although victims’ names are not announced), or to safeguard the name of the Church.

Bold mine. There's also quite a bit more in this section about announcing church discipline.

Announcing and clarifying the excommunication of a general authority are consistent with the policies of the church as written in Handbook 1. The confidentiality of the disciplinary process has never been absolute, with clear exceptions being authorized for the reasons mentioned above and others given in the handbook.

Not to mention that since the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve are the ones who determine policies in the first place, it should be clear that they are authorized to make exceptions when they believe or feel inspired that an exception is warranted.

[HappyJackWagon]

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).

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

It seems clear to me that the church absolutely expected a deluge of speculation. They would be foolish not to. But then they did their best to direct that speculation towards one conclusion despite claiming to maintain confidentiality.

"I'm not going to tell you what he did because that would violate confidentiality. But I can tell you that the reasons people are excommunicated are for reasons  X, Y, or Z and we can say clearly that he wasn't exed for reasons Y or Z".

[Amulek]

7 hours ago, rockpond said:

 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.)

I'm a faithful church member, and that isn't the conclusion I have come to.  

Honestly, the first thing that popped into my head when I heard about this was that it was probably a money thing. Some sort of sexual sin was the second thing I considered (anywhere from pornography use to actual adultery); followed shortly by some sort of familial abuse (emotional or otherwise). That's about as far as my brain got before it started churning out snarky ideas like being ex'd for buying tickets to go see the Book of Mormon musical. 

The only thing I infer from the church's statement about him not being excommunicated for disillusionment or apostasy is that he was most likely subjected to church discipline due to some sort of personal transgression. That is more than enough information to forestall our critics from making arguments from silence about the "real" reason he was excommunicated (which we all know they would be doing). And it may also help put at ease the minds of some members who might be worried by a high level church member being excommunicated if they thought it were due to doctrinal matters.

 

 

[JulieM]

26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It seems clear to me that the church absolutely expected a deluge of speculation. They would be foolish not to. But then they did their best to direct that speculation towards one conclusion despite claiming to maintain confidentiality.

"I'm not going to tell you what he did because that would violate confidentiality. But I can tell you that the reasons people are excommunicated are for reasons  X, Y, or Z and we can say clearly that he wasn't exed for reasons Y or Z".

I agree.  It absolutely violates the confidentiality.  But as others have wondered, maybe he ok'd it or even requested it so as to not do more damage to the church.

I have wondered though how many would feel if they'd announced he was ex'd, but not for adultery or sexual misconduct.  Would that be different?

Edited August 9, 2017 by JulieM

[stemelbow]

It seems to me the Church could have just told us he was released for unspecified reasons and left his excommunication between him and the Church and God, type of stuff.  I'm not sure helping to narrow down the speculation of why is helping to limit the speculation or does anything of benefit to the Church at all. 

I really struggle with the Church on this type of stuff--protect the Church at all cost, kind of thing.  It bothers me. 

Edited August 9, 2017 by stemelbow

[JulieM]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It seems to me the Church could have just told us he was released for unspecified reasons and left his excommunication between him and the Church and God, type of stuff.  I'm not sure helping to narrow down the speculation of why is helping to limit the speculation or does anything of benefit to the Church at all. 

I remember being told that it's announced only if members have been harmed or sinned against.  

I lived in a ward where the clerk embezzled ward funds and the adults were asked to stay after sacrament meeting.  The Bishop announced the clerk had been ex'd and explained this was being announced because it was OUR contributions that had been stolen.

It seems that Dehlin and others have been criticized for going public with claims that it would have never been announced by the leaders because these things are confidential.

Edited August 9, 2017 by JulieM

[Johnnie Cake]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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?

Nice attempt at spinning my words...but my words they speak for themselves and don't require your spin thank you very much.  the church has had a long standing policy of not commenting and yet when it serves their needs they break this long standing policy.  I'm merely making an observation Robert.

[Johnnie Cake]

7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

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

I posted there as Craig Paxton

Edited August 9, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[hope_for_things]

How does a Second Anointing factor into an excommunication?  I thought the theology basically guaranteed someone exaltation, and that only the taking of innocent blood could interrupt this process.  With his leadership track record I think its pretty safe to assume he likely had this second anointing ceremony already.  Wouldn't this play a factor in any excommunication proceedings?  

[ksfisher]

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

How does a Second Anointing factor into an excommunication?  I thought the theology basically guaranteed someone exaltation, and that only the taking of innocent blood could interrupt this process.  With his leadership track record I think its pretty safe to assume he likely had this second anointing ceremony already.  Wouldn't this play a factor in any excommunication proceedings?  

No ordinance, covenant, rite, or ritual can take away from a persons right to choose.  All blessings are based upon the faithfulness and the obedience of that person to the conditions of the blessing.

20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—

21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

D&C 130

Even with his leadership track record it's probably best not to assume anything.

Edited August 9, 2017 by ksfisher

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

"I'm not going to tell you what he did because that would violate confidentiality. But I can tell you that the reasons people are excommunicated are for reasons  X, Y, or Z and we can say clearly that he wasn't exed for reasons Y or Z".

 The list of X is still varied. Financial abuse, adultery, incest, child or spouse abuse, severe vice, serious contention with other general authorities, etc. If one is going to speculate, gosh, don't limit yourself.

As mentioned previously, general authorities are often held to a higher standard  sometimes as need to protect the good name of the church. Something that might just get me disfellowshipped could result in their excommunication.

[clarkgoble]

23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

How does a Second Anointing factor into an excommunication?  I thought the theology basically guaranteed someone exaltation, and that only the taking of innocent blood could interrupt this process.  With his leadership track record I think its pretty safe to assume he likely had this second anointing ceremony already.  Wouldn't this play a factor in any excommunication proceedings?  

That's only when the second anointing is fulfilled or sealed by the holy spirit of promise. McConkie goes through that in depth in a few places. (Second anointings had reportedly ceased for several decades in the 20th century and were rumored to have started up again under Kimball with McConkie pushing it)  Basically if you're at that level of experience then sin in a significant way (obviously everyone sins in some degree) it's going to be pretty rough for you. I'd also not assume Seventies have had second anointings though let alone their fulfillment. (I know back when they separated the two quorums more there was speculation the first quorum primarily was due to 2cd anointing but I'm really skeptical  of that) On the other hand there have been people claiming he was making oblique references to such things in talks to missionaries. Whether that is him acting inappropriately or something else we just don't know. That's the point of such things. You can never really know if someone has really had such experiences. (Think Snuffer) By and large it doesn't matter. My own rule of thumb is outside perhaps of an apostle anyone who really had such an experience wouldn't talk about it.

Edited August 9, 2017 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

No ordinance, covenant, rite, or ritual can take away from a persons right to choose.  All blessings are based upon the faithfulness and the obedience of that person to the conditions of the blessing.

20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—

21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

D&C 130

Even with his leadership track record it's probably best not to assume anything.

The second anointing is a unique situation.  Some have speculated that this is why Tom Phillips the former stake president from England who tried suing the church in court a couple years ago, hasn't been excommunicated.  I'm asking the question because I'm not sure if this would play a part in the decision making around excommunication?  

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

That's only when the second anointing is fulfilled or sealed by the holy spirit of promise. McConkie goes through that in depth in a few places. (Second anointings had reportedly ceased for several decades in the 20th century and were rumored to have started up again under Kimball with McConkie pushing it)  Basically if you're at that level of experience then sin it's going to be pretty rough for you. I'd also not assume Seventies have had second anointings though let alone their fulfillment. On the other hand there have been people claiming he was making oblique references to such things in talks to missionaries. Whether that is him acting inappropriately or something else we just don't know. That's the point of such things. You can never really know if someone has really had such experiences. (Think Snuffer) By and large it doesn't matter. My own rule of thumb is outside perhaps of an apostle anyone who really had such an experience wouldn't talk about it.

I thought that getting your second anointing is the act of being sealed by the holy spirit of promise.  Its been a while since I've read the Buerger essay on this subject, maybe I need to refresh my memory.  

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V16N01_12.pdf

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The second anointing is a unique situation.  Some have speculated that this is why Tom Phillips the former stake president from England who tried suing the church in court a couple years ago, hasn't been excommunicated.  I'm asking the question because I'm not sure if this would play a part in the decision making around excommunication?  

If a person who has received their second anointing were to be called before a disciplinary council it would certainly play a part in the decision making process.  Where much is given much is required as the saying goes.

Speculation surrounding Tom Phillips is just that.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

It seems to me the Church could have just told us he was released for unspecified reasons and left his excommunication between him and the Church and God, type of stuff.  I'm not sure helping to narrow down the speculation of why is helping to limit the speculation or does anything of benefit to the Church at all. 

I really struggle with the Church on this type of stuff--protect the Church at all cost, kind of thing.  It bothers me. 

I don't see it that way. I see it as protecting me and every other faithful Church member from antagonistic and harmful gossip that a high-level Church leader had apostatized. You know Dehlin would be having a field day right now speculating about such a thing if it hadn't been squelched in advance. I am grateful for the squelching,  whether or not it was by request of Brother Hamula. 

Edited August 9, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[pogi]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I really struggle with the Church on this type of stuff--protect the Church at all cost, kind of thing.  It bothers me. 

By protecting the church, they are only protecting the members.  What benefit can the church be to its members if it is not protected.  False accusations and speculations have hurt more members then they have helped.  I

I think the church rightly understood that they couldn't keep the excommunication of a GA secret.  If they did try to keep it secret, and it was leaked, people would have been accusing the church of hiding something to protect itself.  Either way, they would have been accused of protecting themselves at all cost.  If they didn't clarify that it wasn't for reasons of apostasy, then I think the speculation would have been so great that it would have to be addressed eventually by either brother Hamula or the church.  That would have put undue pressure and responsibility on brother Hamula for many others potentially leaving the church over his misunderstood excommunication.  I think all involved, including Hamula, felt it best to be upfront without divulging specifics, rather than letting the gossip train come to its own conclusions.

Edited August 9, 2017 by pogi

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

It seems to me the Church could have just told us he was released for unspecified reasons and left his excommunication between him and the Church and God, type of stuff.  I'm not sure helping to narrow down the speculation of why is helping to limit the speculation or does anything of benefit to the Church at all. 

I really struggle with the Church on this type of stuff--protect the Church at all cost, kind of thing.  It bothers me. 

Same!

[clarkgoble]

24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I thought that getting your second anointing is the act of being sealed by the holy spirit of promise.  Its been a while since I've read the Buerger essay on this subject, maybe I need to refresh my memory.  

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V16N01_12.pdf

The Buerger essay is somewhat dated. It was reworked into the book that Buerger had The Mysteries of Godliness with some changes from that essay along with a few others of Buerger's essays. Even that is dated. A more up to date book that covers a lot of the same ground (albeit with far less interpretation) is Devery Anderson's The Development of LDS Temple Worship. I've not read it as it's not available for Kindle but he also has Joseph Smith's Quorum of the Anointed, 1842-1845: A Documentary History. Both are primarily focused on source documents rather than analysis.

People have left the Church after receiving their higher ordinances. Indeed most of the break off sects in the early 20th century claimed authority due to the second anointings. The Denver Snuffer group emphasizes it too although I don't know if any had them administered by the Apostles. Tom Phillips is the most infamous recent one since he spoke about the ordinances in depth with Dehlin. Where much is given much is required and in my view the consequences will be greater in the next life for people who do this. I also assume they didn't have the blessings sealed or else that would be even more serious. Joseph was rather explicit that people could fall from grace even when their blessings were sealed. So the idea of it's permanent is not doctirnal.

Jonathan Stapley is reportedly coming out with a book going through a lot of the issues on priesthood he's written about over the years. Several of his works have rethought how historians thought about many priesthood issues. (Particularly the distinction between patriarchal priesthood and Melchezedek such as Andy Ehat had argued in his well known thesis) There are a few other books on somewhat related topics coming out as well. So it should be an interesting few years for historians on these things.

Edited August 9, 2017 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

The Buerger essay is somewhat dated. It was reworked into the book that Buerger had The Mysteries of Godliness with some changes from that essay along with a few others of Buerger's essays. Even that is dated. 

People have left the Church after receiving their higher ordinances. Tom Phillips is the most infamous one since he spoke about the ordinances in depth with Dehlin. Where much is given much is required and in my view the consequences will be greater in the next life for people who do this. I also assume they didn't have the blessings sealed or else that would be even more serious. Joseph was rather explicit that people could fall from grace even when their blessings were sealed. So the idea of it's permanent is not doctirnal.

Jonathan Stapley is reportedly coming out with a book going through a lot of the issues on priesthood he's written about over the years. Several of his works have rethought how historians thought about many priesthood issues. (Particularly the distinction between patriarchal priesthood and Melchezedek such as Andy Ehat had argued in his well known thesis) There are a few other books on somewhat related topics coming out as well. So it should be an interesting few years for historians on these things.

I agree its dated and I've read his book as well.  I would love to see more up to date scholarship on it, so thanks for the heads up about Stapley and other works I'll keep my eyes open for that, sounds exciting.  

Theologically speaking, I'm not sure that your reading of this not being permanent is accurate, there is evidence that makes me think otherwise.  Its especially hard with a doctrine that is considered so secret like this, and I haven't read the council of 50 minutes book that recently came out, but i wonder if there is anything interesting in there on this subject.  

As for consequences in the next life, who knows, its all speculation.  

[hope_for_things]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't see it that way. I see it as protecting me and every other faithful Church member from antagonistic and harmful gossip that a high-level Church leader had apostatized. You know Dehlin would be having a field day right now speculating about such a thing if it hadn't been squelched in advance. I am grateful for the squelching,  whether or not it was by request of Brother Hamula. 

There is still a lot of speculation about whether or not the reason officially given about it not being for apostasy isn't just PR spin.  I tend to think that if it was for apostasy the chances that this gets out into the open at some point in the future are pretty high, and the church would have some egg on its face.  But I'm not willing to rule out apostasy option just because of the official newsroom announcement.  

[Anijen]

Happy Jack Wagon and Johnny Cake, my advice is get over it!

The LDS Church has put in place exceptions, (a General Authority, a Seventy being excommunicated definitely fits in with the exception). These exceptions are expressely written into the church doctrine (i.e. see Church Handbook of Instructions or D&C 42:88–93 This exception has been ignored by you two (and some others) so often in this thread and has become almost redundant to even read your posts. 

There are exceptions in everything, just move along already (it's as if your agenda is to bash the church).

Exceptions:

Therapist or Counselor

Other Mental Health Providers

Doctor/Patient

Attorney/Client

Priest/Confessor

BYU Paper on Keeping Confidentiality and Confessions

 

 

[rockpond]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

Of course the Church has the right to make exceptions.  And general authorities probably should be held to a higher standard.  Totally agree.

And, when you make an exception that compromises the confidentiality of an individual in order to prevent yourself and church members from "antagonistic and harmful gossip", I consider that to be self-serving.

Remember the Church stated:  "Councils are always better when all involved respect confidentiality." (per the source you provided)

 

[rockpond]

10 hours ago, Freedom said:

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.

This analogy only works IF you have long standing policy of NOT defending yourself against ax wielding maniacs.

In this case, the statement by the church is:  Councils are always better when all involved respect confidentiality.

[clarkgoble]

32 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

If a person who has received their second anointing were to be called before a disciplinary council it would certainly play a part in the decision making process.  Where much is given much is required as the saying goes.

Speculation surrounding Tom Phillips is just that.

What do you mean by that? He went on Dehlin and talked openly about it all. Or do you mean why there hasn't been a church court? (I honestly think there should be - and was surprised to find there wasn't) It obviously can't be because of anointings since it's easy to find people with anointings who were excommunicated.