- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Also, to be clear, it is perfectly fine for people here to disagree about this. It is part of what makes this site what it is. Since you’ve given permission, Ray… 😈 I think the church should have just stuck with the “no comment” to any questions. I do think there would have been speculation about apostasy in today’s climate where so many are leaving. So what’s the difference in speculation about apostasy vs. speculation about sexual immorality vs. any other speculation? They’re all “bad.”
DarkJedi wrote:
Since you’ve given permission, Ray…😈 I think the church should have just stuck with the “no comment” to any questions. I do think there would have been speculation about apostasy in today’s climate where so many are leaving. So what’s the difference in speculation about apostasy vs. speculation about sexual immorality vs. any other speculation? They’re all “bad.”
Agree 100%. If I were in his shoes, I would rather all responses from the church be brick walls of “no comment.” Let the speculation go any which direction. But by confirming it wasn’t something, the bulk of the speculation tends to go a certain direction. I would be hurt by the church responding in a way that seems to serve its own interests more than the individual. I’m not surprised but if it were me personally in that situation, I would definitely be hurt.
I understand that, DJ and DT. I really do. For additional information, the newsroom article about church discipline includes an explicit statement that says in rare cases the result of a disciplinary council can be shared in order to protect someone from misinformation. There was no breach of policy in this case, and that is important.
Again, when I try to put myself in his shoes, assuming I still have a testimony, I would not want my situation to be used by anyone in a way that would further disaffection or apostasy – that would reflect badly, in my mind, on the Church. I would not want anyone to think I was disaffected or an apostate, or blame the Church for my actions, and I would appreciate that clarification to protect against misinformation.
I would not want anyone to imply I was excommunicated because I couldn’t stay LDS any longer.
Maybe others here wouldn’t appreciate it. I understand. However, I would.
That is a good point, Ray. I don’t disagree with the announcement itself, I do think that’s policy and warranted in this case because people would notice (Hey, whatever happened to…?) So do you think that by eliminating the probably first thing people would have thought (apostasy), Brother Hamula is any better off? Because the next most obvious is sexual immorality and that can run the gamut of having an affair to being gay to diddling little kids. I’m not sure I’d appreciate that kind of speculation, either and I’d probably rather be though of as an apostate. Quote:the decision of a disciplinary council may be shared publicly to prevent others from being harmed through misinformation.
That only speaks to the
decisionof the council, not the reasonsfor the decision. It makes sense. If he attended his home ward this Sunday the church probably wouldn’t want the person conducting SM to mistakenly identify Hamula as the presiding authority. But I agree with the camp that would have preferred the PR arm of the church stonewall reporters on any question related to the
reasonfor church discipline. Was it apostasy?
The details of the decision are a private matter and they will not be discussed.
Was it adultery?
The details of the decision are a private matter and they will not be discussed.
Etc.
And I fully understand the scenario where the Salt Lake Tribune or the Washington Post asks gotcha questions to get inexperienced PR people to reveal more information that what they intended to reveal but that information was in the Deseret News. Church news is running the same article on lds.org. They’re in full control of the narrative there.
It’s a short list. What did the Urim and Thummim say? We can’t tell you. Did it say no? All we can say is that it didn’t say yes.
Ray has a good point and I think it brings up another side issue. When we as individuals try to determine what we think is the “right” thing to do in any circumstance, we tend to project what WE would want done and that becomes the “right” thing. If I were in that situation, I wouldn’t want the church to say anything at all about what was or was not involved in the decision so that’s the “right” thing for me. Ray’s perspective is different, so he sees a differen “right” course of action. I guess in this situation the actual right thing to do would be based on the involved individual’s desire. I would feel more comfortable if I knew Elder Hamula was involved in what was divulged publicly. But if what was said (as I suspect in my admittedly biased mind) was done primarily to protect the church and not in accordance with Elder Hamula’s best interests at heart, then I think it was wrong. Wrong because it unfairly puts him under a microscope that now is more focused rather than fuzzy as it should be in these sorts of private circumstances.
I actually don’t see why it needed to be announced at all. Quietly release him. List it publicly as emeritus status. Send any additional information where it needs to go such as a home Bishop or something. And let him and his family deal with it privately. It’s not as if the church is going to suddenly remove all of his conference talks or anything. If he had upcoming responsibilities or engagements just send someone else.
In my mind we started the drama by making a public statement.
To me it’s ironic, as a church, we are happily transparent about someone’s fall (Thomas Marsh, Emma, and so on) but on details that may alter the shiny vision of the group – crickets.
No matter what he did – I presently feel worse for him now, than the “sin” he likely committed. I know that sounds bad but that’s how I see it.
Frankly, I think people would speculate about the reason(s) based on where they are personally in relation to the Church – and I think their reaction to the clarification will depend on that exact same thing. For example, I immediately, unintentionally, began to think of the possible reasons as soon as I heard about it – since I know what kind of things would cause excommunication for someone in that position. That isn’t fair to him, but it is human nature, and I am human. Fortunately, I was able to eliminate disaffection and apostasy right from the start. I never once considered whether he was either disaffected or an apostate. By all accounts, including the clarification, he has been and continues to be a traditional, believing, orthodox member – who apparently did something serious that he shouldn’t have done. Most of his close friends and family probably are similar to him in that regard. I assume, therefore, that, for him and for them, the worst thing possible would be for him to be an apostate or to be seen as an apostate. Personal mistakes, with only a few exceptions, are forgiven much more easily by most believers than being an apostate. For that reason, it would be important to them that as many people as possible knew that he wasn’t excommunicated for apostasy. It also would be important to them that the Church not be blamed for what happened – that nobody assume he just couldn’t be Mormon any longer. People would and will speculate about every other possibility regardless – but, for a deeply believing “TBM” (to use a common term I hate), eliminating the “worst” reason would be important. I know it would be important for me, if I was in that position – and I know thousands of members for whom it would be important, as well.
Due to who he is and his overall situation, I think removing that speculation absolutely was kind – especially since it kept him from being a poster boy on ex-mormon and anti-mormon sites that specialize in disaffection and apostasy and would have assumed “the worst” (in his mind and the minds of his family and friends).
But that’s kind of part of the point, Mom. They couldn’t say he’s emeritus, he’s not even a member of the church anymore. They could have tried to just quietly release him, I suppose, but inquiring minds would still want to know and they’d start asking and eventually they’d find someone who would talk (which is what will happen eventually anyway). Then they’d have “Look what the church tried to cover up this time” and that would be compounded if it really is a of a sexual nature. mom3, I respect that, deeply – but . . . There is no way to hide something like this. It can’t be hidden when it is a Bishop or Stake President, much less such a high-level GA. Regular members can have things like this done quietly; high-profile leaders can’t. It simply is the nature of their callings.
That is even clearer when they are in good health, relatively young age (comparatively) and are released at an extremely odd time (not in General Conference, as part of a natural turnover process). Being excommunicated, they had to release him immediately, but doing so without any announcement would have fueled the disaffection / apostasy fires AND added an element of perceived cover-up to the entire thing.
Transparency is a two-edged sword. We tend to want it for things about which we want to know, but we don’t want it in cases where we don’t want to know the details. So many people would have lambasted the Church if they had done this quietly, without any announcement, for trying to hide an embarrassing situation; so many people would have circulated all kinds of wild, inaccurate rumors about disaffection and apostasy if they had refused to answer the question; so many people will complain about how they actually handled it.
So, for me personally, I agree with you that the key is compassion and concern – and I truly believe that he and his family want the world to know he didn’t get excommunicated for disaffection or apostasy – that having people know that is important to them. Sure, that is speculation to a degree, but I know it is how I would feel if I was in his shoes – and I know many leaders who would feel the same way. I don’t think this was callous; I think it stopped a whole lot of vicious speculation from occurring.
(I was typing my comment and didn’t see DJ’s until I had posted mine.)
Something odd I noticed with this whole thing is that people are saying the church wouldn’t announce why he was excommunicated. The problem with that is, they’ve done that before. When George P. Lee was excommunicated, it was immediately in Deseret News and they told their readers why. They didn’t say that part of the reason was for molesting a minor, that came out later. But what they said was he was excommunicated for ‘apostasy and conduct unbecoming a member”. So I find it interesting that they were very upfront to tell everyone that Lee apostasized, but this time, they’re only telling us what Hamula didn’t do. I do think it’s better for the reasons to remain confidential, I think the church made a mistake in announcing that Lee had apostasized, and maybe they’re trying to avoid doing that this time. Here’s the original article that came out about George Lee’s excommunication: I know this is in the articles but it is worth emphasizing. This guy was very high profile. He was executive director of correlation. That’s not small beans, it’s a big calling (and that may have contributed to why the church felt it important to emphasize the apostasy thing). Back in the days of speculation about the new apostles his name was on many people’s short list and probably on the real short list (although they could have been inspired otherwise). Thanks Ray and DJ for the broader views. I think I will just take time and let this go. I don’t know him. He didn’t change correlation much. I wish his family the best.
mom3 wrote:
He didn’t change correlation much.
Isn’t that in the job description?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.