- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
James Hamula of the 1st Q of 70 was excommunicated and then releasedSo why did they have to add that? They won’t say why he was ex’d, but they’ll tell us why not? Could they also add “he was not ex’d for having sex with the neighbor lady across the street?” What are they hinting at? Could it be because he was head of the Correlation Dept at the COB?
[Admin Note]: 1) I changed the title of the post. It was an attempt at humor, but it was not appropriate, since there is no indication his issue(s) would have landed him here. 2) I was too harsh in my original wording in this Admin Note. I have edited it greatly to focus solely on the title change. I’m sorry, Sheldon. I assume, in this day of rampant speculation about disaffection and apostasy, that the Church was getting it out of the way right from the beginning in its response to the reporters’ question. Without such a statement, it is guaranteed that there would have been extensive speculation, with that specific claim being tossed around the ex-Mormon and anti-Mormon sites until it was believed to be fact by lots of people – including regular members hearing it from friends and family. That part is simple, in my opinion. I have heard quite a few people who knew him say they thought he was a very good man, so, for now, I am focusing on feeling sorry for him and his family. Falling from such a height has to be traumatic.
I guess that’s what is particularly interesting about making the note it was not for apostasy, Ray. I too believe it was because if they said nothing the assumption would be apostasy because that seems to be the most likely reason (and the reason most “modern” and many older ones were for). But in doing so, that leaves us to narrow it down as you did – most likely sexual. I’m not a huge fan of excommunication and I feel for him and his family.
I also absolutely loved his talk in Oct. 2014.
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/the-sacrament-and-the-atonement?lang=eng ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/the-sacrament-and-the-atonement?lang=eng I am not going to dive into the “why” (just go see facebook if you want to see all kinds of speculation). It will come out in the end and I do want to know. At this point, even with where I sit in my feelings towards the church – I feel for him and his family. Quote:[Admin Note]: 1) I changed the title of the post. It was an attempt at humor, clever wording, or a veiled shot at the Church. I don’t know which, but it was not appropriate, since there is no indication his issue(s) would have landed him here.
What? Sheldon making a joke? Never! Sheldon getting his posts censored on StayLDS? What is the world coming to!
On a more serious note, the very next sentence after the article said he was not excommunicated for apostasy, it then says “All church discipline is carried out in complete confidence” So which is it? You can’t have it both ways. If it is confidential, you say nothing, if you are going to say something, then tell everything.
This reminds me a bit of Paul H. Dunn’s discipline in the church. I think it was even left vague about the level of discipline imposed on him. Check the oracle of all knowledge — Wikipedia.org :crazy: I will say that although reasons for excommunication are confidential, the CHI says that when knowledge is widespread about the transgression or other factors exist, they do announce that a person has been excommunicated. I think that a high profile person suddenly released, or if there was even widespread local knowledge about his infraction that led to his excommunication, might qualify in this instance. Further, a high profile person who had wronged people in some way (I’m not speculating) may be worthy of a big announcement to show the church took action.
Quote:The church confirmed that this action was not taken because of disillusionment or apostasy.
Hmm…
Further to the comments above, I suggest that this is broad and not necessarily sexual. (It is not what first sprang to mind.)
Sheldon, the Church was asked directly by reporters if it was for disaffection or apostasy. They didn’t offer that information proactively. If they had refused to answer the question, the story all over the Internet would have been that they had ducked the question, which must mean that it was disaffection or apostasy. Thus, their only reasonable response was to answer the question the way they did – which essentially was, “No, but we don’t discuss specific reasons publicly.” This isn’t trying to have it both ways; this is diffusing potentially explosive misinformation by answering a question directly and not getting into specifics.
Also, speaking as an admin, knock off the sarcasm. That isn’t how we operate here, and you have been around long enough to know it. Disagreement is fine; sarcasm directed at other participants or the site itself is not. The original title was misleading, so I changed it. It is that simple.
I hurt for his wife and children. There whole lives just tipped over. No matter what the reason. When you reach that level in the church your circle becomes smaller. It seems like it would be bigger but it’s not. Worst of all it’s made national news. True it won’t last forever, but most of us normal dudes wouldn’t have our failure headlined in the New York Post. Old Timer wrote:
Sheldon, the Church was asked directly by reporters if it was for disaffection or apostasy. They didn’t offer that information proactively. If they had refused to answer the question, the story all over the Internet would have been that they had ducked the question, which must mean that it was disaffection or apostasy. Thus, their only reasonable response was to answer the question the way they did – which essentially was, “No, but we don’t discuss specific reasons publicly.”That’s new information for me and does change how I’m looking at it a bit.
The inevitable question – without any speculation – is whether this action is overraction or justified. Time will tell. I believe that the church gave out this information to protect the church. Former GA Hans Mattsson became somewhat of a poster child for the idea that even the church authorities have no good answers for the questions/problems that plague us. I think the church wanted to prevent this from happening again with Brother Hamula. I agree that this does not exactly represent confidentiality. Could the reporters have simply asked about every possible reason for excommunication until they got a, “no comment.” Reporters are going to ask questions. We cannot say that the reporters made them breach confidentiality.
I almost think it would have been easier if the church had simply said something to the effect that he was exed for “moral misconduct” and move on.
Even if the details given were in response to a question, they could have (should have?) simply responded that no details or discussion are given regarding disciplinary councils. No fuel to the speculation with a canned “no comment” response. I personally feel that saying what it was NOT opens up more rabid speculation about what it WAS and leads to all kinds of speculation about his personal life, including very private sexual speculations. All while protecting the church from harmful speculation.
Disagree with me if you want, but I feel for him and his family and all the hurtful speculation going on. I think the church was wrong not to just say “no comment” and let the speculation go where it will. At least that way, speculation about him losing faith would be thrown in the mix too and not be so focused on very private sexual transgressions. I am disappointed that the church offered ANY information at all. I see in this protecting the corporation while leaving the individual to the wolves.
I sincerely hope he and his famly can weather this storm.
To be clear, I do not think anyone made anyone breach confidentiality. I simply believe, in this time of rampant speculation and irresponsible rumormongering, it was wise to answer the direct question and refuse truly to breach confidentiality. Any other response would have led to tons of on-going speculation – and, probably, even attempts to contact him and his family to discuss his assumed disaffection / apostasy. Cutting the rug out from under that sort of frenzy was wise, in my opinion.
Frankly, I also think it was being kind to him and his family, since it didn’t place any of them in the position of being considered apostates – which I am certain is important to them.
This is not an apologetic response. I have tried to put myself in his shoes, and I would appreciate that clarification if I was in his situation.
I hope he has strong mental health. His life has been very much about the church when you see his long list of high profile callings, etcetera. This would be extremely shattering. And because he believes, probably, in the gospel as believed by the average person in the church, he might feel there are eternal implications to make matters even worse. Also hard to handle would be a) censure from his family b) and having to go through all the rites of passage again. As a former SP he probably was involved in the excommunication of other people, and had to see them go through the slow process of rebaptism, sometimes priesthood offices one at a time (not all at once like we do with new members who start as a priest if age and mental capability dictates). It would be years before he gets his blessings back.
And then there is the discomfort of attending your own Ward again.
I know how I felt when I was sort of shamed in our Ward by a woman who was out of line, and my “censure” had nothing to do with church discipline. Not that the church is “shaming” as we hear about in other cultures, but it certainly will be a difficult day for him to go to church afterwards.
I feel for the guy and hope he finds a path through this so he can be at peace again. And most of all, hope this doesn’t affect his physical and mental health as church challenges have affected mine in the past.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.