A General Authority excommunicated?

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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)

 

The Church statement contained a caveat, as you well know. 

I'll tell you what. If I were ever in the unfortunate position of undergoing Church discipline, and I knew that was going to be widely known, I would want it widely publicized that the reason was not personal apostasy. It would be worth it to me to protect good Church members from the propaganda of Dehlin, Reel and others. 

Edited August 9, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[clarkgoble]

15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

Well, at a minimum McConkie thought it was no guarantee and wrote about it a surprising amount in his Doctrinal New Testament Commentary. (Probably he was writing that at the time the ordinance was being practiced more again)  Still the "fall from grace" comments by Joseph Smith that McConkie and others make use of are pretty clear. A lot of this is wrapped up in the apostate sects over the cessation of polygamy. It's just hard to see it being permanent when so many Apostles were excommunicated over the issue. (Starting with John W. Taylor and ending with Lyman)

From a purely theological point of view it seems hard to buy the idea of permanence. Sounds too much like certain Protestant ideas of grace that Joseph explicitly thought wrong. It just seems completely at odds with free will. Further the very idea of sealing seems to require that their opposite is possible. 

[ksfisher]

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

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. 

I was meaning speculation surrounding why there has not been a disciplinary council for Phillips. 

[Anijen]

22 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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.

We need to remember that there are exceptions. A Seventy being excommunicated falls with the interest of the Church to protect itself (self-serving or not). 

Note: traditionally only confessions were meant to be confidential. The Church has generally gone way beyond this by keeping not just confessions, but matters involving church discipline (even those without confession), financial matters, callings, etc... all confidential, so much so that when the church does disclose a reason that wasn't used (here, apostasy) that some members and non-members go nuts when such a "breach" is made, when the Church has had the right to disclose it in the first place.

Sometimes chastisement, discipline and an act of humbling oneself is in our path to becoming more like our Savior.

Edited to say: also remember once the holder of a confidential privilege discloses information (think Dehlin) the Church no longer has a duty of confidentiality, (even though I do not believe that to be the case here).

Edited August 9, 2017 by Anijen

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Anijen said:

We need to remember that there are exceptions. A Seventy being excommunicated falls with the interest of the Church to protect itself (self-serving or not). 

Of course.

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Church statement contained a caveat, as you well know. 

A caveat that didn't apply in this situation.

[HappyJackWagon]

29 minutes ago, Anijen said:

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

 

 

Wow. I didn't realize 2 posts on an 8 page thread was being overly obsessive about it in an attempt to "bash the church". Your concern and rudeness is noted. When you don't like engaging a certain topic, maybe you could just skip it...or perhaps just get over it

Try working on those people skills a little. It might help on a discussion board.

Sidenote- Is the church handbook of instruction now considered church doctrine?

ETA- BTW, D&C 42:88-93 doesn't make your point for this exception. Did Hamula offend many people? In public? Refuse to confess?

Edited August 9, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[Anijen]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

A caveat that didn't apply in this situation.

I disagree. It most certainly applies in cases where leadership is questioned. In this case out of millions of church members there is only a small handful who hold the title (and mantle) of a General Authority.

Remember the Nauvoo and Kirtland period when many members apostatized (most due to losing their faith in their leaders). If it were not for the influx of thousands of English, Welch, Scottish, Irish etc.... saint immigrating to Nauvoo the church could have had a very drastic outcome.

So, yes, I definitely disagree, the excommunication of a leader of the Church is absolutely a "caveat" that applies in this situation.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, Anijen said:

I disagree. It most certainly applies in cases where leadership is questioned. In this case out of millions of church members there is only a small handful who hold the title (and mantle) of a General Authority.

Remember the Nauvoo and Kirtland period when many members apostatized (most due to losing their faith in their leaders). If it were not for the influx of thousands of English, Welch, Scottish, Irish etc.... saint immigrating to Nauvoo the church could have had a very drastic outcome.

So, yes, I definitely disagree, the excommunication of a leader of the Church is absolutely a "caveat" that applies in this situation.

But it's not a caveat described in scripture.

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Sidenote- Is the church handbook of instruction now considered church doctrine?

Handbooks 1 and 2 contain church doctrine and are based on church doctrine.  It should be noted that neither handbook has application in a disciplinary action involving a general authority.  Handbooks 1 and 2 are  for administering the church on a ward and stake level.  Actions involving the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve would not be covered by the policies in either of those books.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

Handbooks 1 and 2 contain church doctrine and are based on church doctrine.  It should be noted that neither handbook has application in a disciplinary action involving a general authority.  Handbooks 1 and 2 are  for administering the church on a ward and stake level.  Actions involving the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve would not be covered by the policies in either of those books.

I agree that the handbooks are policy. Policy is not doctrine, even if it claims to be based on doctrine. I think it would be foolish to make the claim that handbooks are books of doctrine. They are policies based upon best understandings and applications of doctrines. There's a difference there.

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Anijen said:

I disagree. It most certainly applies in cases where leadership is questioned. In this case out of millions of church members there is only a small handful who hold the title (and mantle) of a General Authority.

Remember the Nauvoo and Kirtland period when many members apostatized (most due to losing their faith in their leaders). If it were not for the influx of thousands of English, Welch, Scottish, Irish etc.... saint immigrating to Nauvoo the church could have had a very drastic outcome.

So, yes, I definitely disagree, the excommunication of a leader of the Church is absolutely a "caveat" that applies in this situation.

You are jumping in mid-conversation... the caveat is referred to in the Mormon Newsroom link that Scott Lloyd cited (re: Dehlin's excommunication).  In that newsroom article, the Church states that all disciplinary councils should be kept confidential and that in the case of Dehlin, they are breaking confidentiality because Dehlin first published a letter discussing the matter.  In that case, they felt it necessary to respond.  And, I agree.  That is the caveat being referred to and it does not apply in this situation because Hamula has not spoken publicly regarding his disciplinary council.

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree that the handbooks are policy. Policy is not doctrine, even if it claims to be based on doctrine. I think it would be foolish to make the claim that handbooks are books of doctrine. They are policies based upon best understandings and applications of doctrines. There's a difference there.

Yes, there is a difference. 

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Handbooks 1 and 2 contain church doctrine and are based on church doctrine.  It should be noted that neither handbook has application in a disciplinary action involving a general authority.  Handbooks 1 and 2 are  for administering the church on a ward and stake level.  Actions involving the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve would not be covered by the policies in either of those books.

 

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree that the handbooks are policy. Policy is not doctrine, even if it claims to be based on doctrine. I think it would be foolish to make the claim that handbooks are books of doctrine. They are policies based upon best understandings and applications of doctrines. There's a difference there.

 

I agree with HJW... if handbooks were doctrine (rather than being based on our best interpretation/understanding of doctrine) than they ought to be open and available to all church members.

[Anijen]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Wow. I didn't realize 2 posts on an 8 page thread was being overly obsessive about it in an attempt to "bash the church".

To readers other than HappyJackWagon, Yes, I know I fell for the bait, please forgive me responding.

 It is not just two posts or the 8 pages, you (and others) have consistently alerted us all at MDDB the Church's weaknesses, failings, etc., not just this thread.

 

Quote

Your concern and rudeness is noted.

I'm an older man whose skin has grown thick and calloused. I do not much care if you think I am rude (see, 1 Nephi 16:2). I am bluntly pointing out what I see and read. I see and read you and some others have a problem with the way the Church has handled this situation. Oh well, I say again get over it. If it were your church I would recognize your interest in it, but it is not. Another observation you have no problem saying I am rude, but in the same thread you have no problem with trying to define the hypocrisy of the church and placing it in your terms. Like I said there are exceptions and you are too proud to look at those.

 

Quote

When you don't like engaging a certain topic, maybe you could just skip it...or perhaps just get over it

Touche

 

Quote

Try working on those people skills a little. It might help on a discussion board.

Yes, I know I am brash and I admit I need to work on my people skills.

 

Quote

Sidenote- Is the church handbook of instruction now considered church doctrine?

No, not in and of itself, however, it does contain doctrines of the church that has been around for a long time and that is what I meant when I wrote that and is implied in the context that I used it that even elementary kids would be able to understand. I am not insulting you here, because I do not believe you to be an elementary level or that you have a lack of understanding I think you use your words wisely and was a deliberate attempt to cast confusion or doubt on my posting. See, i have already improved in my people skills because i could have said that so much more "rudely."

[JulieM]

41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Church statement contained a caveat, as you well know. 

I'll tell you what. If I were ever in the unfortunate position of undergoing Church discipline, and I knew that was going to be widely known, I would want it widely publicized that the reason was not personal apostasy. It would be worth it to me to protect good Church members from the propaganda of Dehlin, Reel and others. 

But the person doesn't need to be protected from other just as serious charges or infractions such as adultery or money fraud or committing a felony?  Why just protect them from the charge of apostasy?

[Anijen]

16 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But it's not a caveat described in scripture.

Moving the goal posts? It does not have to apply in scripture (but it can be found there too). Handbooks (noted are not scriptural), but are used to define duties just as the Doctrine and Covenants are. Here you are again trying to place a weakness on the Church because of your understanding of scripture, LDS doctrine, policy, etc. 

Exceptions in attorney/Client privileges are not in scripture either but are in their handbooks of their profession.

[HappyJackWagon]

11 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Moving the goal posts? It does not have to apply in scripture (but it can be found there too). Handbooks (noted are not scriptural), but are used to define duties just as the Doctrine and Covenants are. Here you are again trying to place a weakness on the Church because of your understanding of scripture, LDS doctrine, policy, etc. 

Exceptions in attorney/Client privileges are not in scripture either but are in their handbooks of their profession.

Not moving the goal post at all. You cited scripture in D&C as justification for the exception/caveat.

Quote

It is not just two posts or the 8 pages, you (and others) have consistently alerted us all at MDDB the Church's weaknesses, failings, etc., not just this thread.

So you're commenting in general about not liking my general tone on anything? Thanks for being honest about it. But I think your bias is showing and preventing you from looking at this more clearly. In any case, I can see engaging you further is pointless.

[Okrahomer]

16 minutes ago, JulieM said:

But the person doesn't need to be protected from other just as serious charges or infractions such as adultery or money fraud or committing a felony?  Why just protect them from the charge of apostasy?

I don't know if it's already been mentioned, but it seems making things like this public (which troubles me too, by the way) could help avoid this sort of thing.

[Anijen]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But I think your bias is showing and preventing you from looking at this more clearly.

I openly admit, I am bias. I am true blue through and through. I love the Church and the restored gospel. I have no problem with defending the policies of the church. Brand me biased, I'm okay with that.

 

Quote

In any case, I can see engaging you further is pointless.

Pointless yes, frivolous, yes,. Your choice you can engage or not engage. If you post something that sparks me to reply I still will.

[rockpond]

35 minutes ago, Anijen said:

If it were your church I would recognize your interest in it, but it is not.

It's not my church.  It's not your church.  It's not the Brethren's church.  It's not the Twelve's church.  It's not the prophet's church.  We are all, however, equal parts of it.

[smac97]

2 hours 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?  

And the gossipy speculation about difficult topics and sacred topics continues.

[Bernard Gui]

Just spoke with my son Cellistino who was an assistant to Elder Hamula in the Washington DC South mission

and holds him in the highest esteem.

The news was shocking to him and their mission webpage is abuzz, as one can imagine.

Making a public announcement was necessary to protect the Church and its members and an act

of honesty and kindness to Elder Hamula and those who know him. Rumor, gossip, speculation, and innuendo serve no one well.

Let's pray for him and his family rather than speculate on what he did. 

Edited August 9, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[ksfisher]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It's not my church.  It's not your church.  It's not the Brethren's church.  It's not the Twelve's church.  It's not the prophet's church.  We are all, however, equal parts of it.

Actually the title of the church tells us who's church it is.  It is the Church of Jesus Christ.  We are all important part of that church, but the church is His.  We sustain the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve as His prophets, seers, and revelators.  He has chosen them to be His representatives to the church until His return.  We believe that when they speak with a united voice that their word is law unto the church just as if it was spoken by Him.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Actually the title of the church tells us who's church it is.  It is the Church of Jesus Christ.  We are all important part of that church, but the church is His.  We sustain the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve as His prophets, seers, and revelators.  He has chosen them to be His representatives to the church until His return.  We believe that when they speak with a united voice that their word is law unto the church just as if it was spoken by Him.

I agree that the title of the Church tells us who's church it is.  That was the point of my response to Anijen.

I disagree, however, that what they speak... even with a united voice... is "law unto the church just as if it was spoken by Him".  The Spirit must confirm such and common consent needs to be invoked.