- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Old Timer wrote:
To be clear, I do not think anyone made anyone breach confidentiality. I simply believe, in this time of rampant speculation and irresponsible rumor-mongering, 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.
So, what if one of the reporters had asked if he was ex’d for adultery? I’m sure the answer would have been “no comment, that is confidential”
Same if they asked if he had embezzled money from the church. Answer would have been “no comment”
But if they asked if it was for apostasy, they answered “no, not apostasy or disillusionment” Was they premeditated? Did the spokesman know the whole story? Were they ready to answer that question, but demur on any other questions? If Ray is right in his thinking that apostasy is the very worst thing a person could be ex’d for, then maybe they had that response all planned, and was going to say that even if not asked.
I am trying to wrap my head around what Ray is saying and I believe he has a point. If I were to be excommunicated it darn well better be for apostasy. This is partly because I disagree with official church positions on so many topics and apparently to disagree stubbornly or publicly can constitute apostasy. For me and my thinking that would be the best possible scenario and my reputation and career prospects outside of the church would not be affected. apostasy doesn’t sound that scary to me.
However, Perhaps he believes with all his heart that the LDS path is the only route to salvation. It is possible that he made a big mistake that requires excommunication. Seeing that he has given virtually his entire life to building up the church perhaps he would view people using his departure from the church as a justification to leave as compounding his own sin. Perhaps he could be thinking of his own children or grandchildren that could leave the church out of a sense of misguided loyalty to him – thus his error could take entire sections of his family line out of the CK.
In that scenario and mindset, perhaps the best thing to do would be for Elder Hamula to hold a press conference, specifically admit whatever wrongdoing occurred, apologize to his family and the membership of the church that trusted in him. He falls on his own sword but does his best to contain the fallout beyond himself and his immediate circle.
I’m tending to agree with Roy here. While Ray has some excellent points, this just smells to me like the church looking out for the church and leaving Elder Hamula under the bus. I could be wrong, of course, but that’s the sense I’m getting from all of this. It is ALWAYS better for the Church to pin excommunication on a specific sin, rather than apostasy. If a Church leader was excommunicated for becoming “disillusioned” with the Church, it would have a startling impact on the members. It’s one of the reasons I’ve been so insistant on keeping so many of the commandments of the Church after becoming disaffected myself. Whatever happens, I don’t want any evidence it was because of sin (or my desire to sin), that caused me to believe the Church is not true. There will never be an ounce of dishonesty, deception, or immortality in any of my dealings with the Church. That being said, I’m not sure why James Hamula was excommunicated; I highly doubt the Church will give us any information on the matter, but I wouldn’t be suprised to learn the truth from other sources. It’s funny how that pattern keeps popping up.
DoubtingTom wrote:
I’m tending to agree with Roy here. While Ray has some excellent points, this just smells to me like the church looking out for the church and leaving Elder Hamula under the bus. I could be wrong, of course, but that’s the sense I’m getting from all of this.
Well, they did excommunicate him. That’s leaving him under the bus in and of itself. It seems to me that when they excommunicate someone at this level, it’s because where much is given much is required. I’m not willing to assume there wasn’t good reason, and if they say it wasn’t for apostasy, well, then I’m gonna speculate the other biggies: embezzlement, adultery, etc. And I know everyone’s wanting to jump on the defensive bandwagon here, but again, I have to assume they did what they did with good reason. He’s not just some woman getting exed (which really is easy to do). He’s a high ranking man. It takes a lot of conviction and power to oust him. I don’t think it can be framed as leader roulette or some other arbitrary thing.I hope all turns out well for him and his family in the long term.
hawkgrrrl wrote:
DoubtingTom wrote:
I’m tending to agree with Roy here. While Ray has some excellent points, this just smells to me like the church looking out for the church and leaving Elder Hamula under the bus. I could be wrong, of course, but that’s the sense I’m getting from all of this.
Well, they did excommunicate him. That’s leaving him under the bus in and of itself. It seems to me that when they excommunicate someone at this level, it’s because where much is given much is required. I’m not willing to assume there wasn’t good reason, and if they say it wasn’t for apostasy, well, then I’m gonna speculate the other biggies: embezzlement, adultery, etc. And I know everyone’s wanting to jump on the defensive bandwagon here, but again, I have to assume they did what they did with good reason. He’s not just some woman getting exed (which really is easy to do). He’s a high ranking man. It takes a lot of conviction and power to oust him. I don’t think it can be framed as leader roulette or some other arbitrary thing.I hope all turns out well for him and his family in the long term.
Position matters. I dated a girl whose father was a SP. He told me that a long time previously they were hesitant to call a single guy to the high council because the consequences would be more grave if he had petting or other problems given his position. In the end, they called him and the guy did have a sexual problem of some kind (not sex, from what I heard) and they had to disfellowship him “because of his position”. I guess it’s one thing to consider when accepting a position in the church — the consequences of making a mistake. If this SP (the father of my girlfriend) has typical thinking of church leaders, position leads to graver consequences than being a rank and file member…
As I read this I’m a bit flabbergasted she knew all this confidential stuff to tell me, a complete stranger to the guy, but that’s another story.
I was too harsh in my Admin Note in the original post. The title needed to be changed, but my description was an over-reaction. I have edited the Admin Note accordingly. I’m sorry, Sheldon.
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.”The only thing is that by answering, “No,” that left the door open for more questions. “Well, if it wasn’t for disaffection or apostasy, was it for sexual misconduct?” If that answer had also be “No,” then, “Well, if it wasn’t for sexual misconduct, was it for embezzlement?” If that answer had been “No,” then there’d have been another question. To me, I think that if they were not going to come right out and say what he was excommunicated for, it would have been better to not even answer the first question. “No comment” would have been preferable. Now that that particular offense has been eliminated, people are just going to focus on what options are left. It’s unfortunate, whatever it is.
Old Timer wrote:
I was too harsh in my Admin Note in the original post. The title needed to be changed, but my description was an over-reaction. I have edited the Admin Note accordingly.I’m sorry, Sheldon.
Curt – Thanks for the above and once again, thank you and the other admins on this site for keeping this site on the rails for the purpose it was built. It could easily be pulled one way or the other.hawkgrrrl wrote:
DoubtingTom wrote:
I’m tending to agree with Roy here. While Ray has some excellent points, this just smells to me like the church looking out for the church and leaving Elder Hamula under the bus. I could be wrong, of course, but that’s the sense I’m getting from all of this.
Well, they did excommunicate him. That’s leaving him under the bus in and of itself. It seems to me that when they excommunicate someone at this level, it’s because where much is given much is required. I’m not willing to assume there wasn’t good reason, and if they say it wasn’t for apostasy, well, then I’m gonna speculate the other biggies: embezzlement, adultery, etc. And I know everyone’s wanting to jump on the defensive bandwagon here, but again, I have to assume they did what they did with good reason. He’s not just some woman getting exed (which really is easy to do). He’s a high ranking man. It takes a lot of conviction and power to oust him. I don’t think it can be framed as leader roulette or some other arbitrary thing.I hope all turns out well for him and his family in the long term.
I agree with you. I have no doubt they had good reason for excommunicating him. I am simply of the opinion that they shouldn’t have given any statements about why, including the statement of why not. Specifically saying it wasn’t for apostasy to me seems to be done to protect the church and then potentially hurts Elder Hamula by driving speculation to more personal sexual sins. I know Ray sees it differently and his argument is certainly well taken.
I just don’t see the church’s response in this as very loving when this is supposed to be a private “court of love.” But as far as the reason, I’m sure they had good reason. I just wish, for Elder Hamula’s sake, they would have simply said “no comment” as to the why.
Just for clarity, The church to my knowledge has never officially called a disciplinary council a court of love. Also one of the explicit reasons given for excommunications is to protect the church. Roy is correct. Multiple leaders have described disciplinary councils in terms of love, but that phrase (“court of love”) has been used most often by critics as a mocking term of derision. Most members don’t realize that, because, unfortunately, it has gained too much traction over the years. Frankly, fwiw, I personally hate that term – both when used by active members to defend councils and by critics to mock them. I also hate “TBM” and “less active” – so it’s just a personal idiosyncrasy.
I was inspired by the writings of a business leader named Max Dupree. He wrote Leadership is an Art and Leadership Jazz. He commented that someone once told him you shouldn’t put your arm around someone when you are taking something away from them. Putting your arm around someone you are punishing is similar to calling a disciplinary council a “Court of Love”. It just doesn’t wash. It’s like the reaction I saw from the crowd on a talk show when Cindy Crawford, the super model said “It doesn’t matter how good looking you are”. The crowd didn’t buy it at all, as the message, and what she represented did not match. Same with the outcome of disciplinary councils where penalties are imposed and the term “Court of Love”.
Now, showing an increase in love afterwards — that is a different story. With the judgment, penalty delivered, it’s time to show the relationship is still something of value to the person rendering the judgment, and not to confuse punishment with hate. Different story.
Say what you will about narrowing the speculation field, at least we will not be poring over every single conference talk or other communication from Elder Hamula to determine which things he said the Church Authorities think should be thrown out. Perhaps he said some very important things that the Church does not want discounted. I’m so sad for him and his family and friends. Quote:Sam B. wrote:
I didn’t know if there had been any further developments in the Hamula case, so I decided to look online recently… what I saw was speculation, speculation, speculation…
I think this is the trouble. The church was so vague about what his excommunication was for that the public has been trying to fill in the gaps. And a lot of the speculation is pretty prurient, to say the least.
Is this another situation the church has just plain mishandled? Short of Mr Hamula himself making a statement – which he hasn’t – it has actually resulted in a form of character assassination. While it is possible he is guilty of one or more of the supposed deeds that I’ve read about on various forums, it is unlikely he ever did most of what he is being accused of, which ranges from the mild to the practically unforgivable.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.