GA Excommunicated

[gkearney]

I'm fairly certain that in such a matter the prophet, his counselors, and the 12 apostles would be quite involved in what the Public Affairs department put out. In any case, my apologies if I implied untruth!

Sadly, my experience with Public Affairs in the past would not confirm such a contention.

[Finrock]

Apart for the private particulars of this case, the manner in which this was handled from the Public Affairs department of the church leaves something to be desired.

First off we have the rather strange statement that this was not due to "disillusionment or apostasy". Since when is one excommunicated for disillusionment? But that is another issue.

However the greater problem here is that given the limited number of things one can be excommunicated for and given that the church statement ruled out one of the major ones, apostasy we are now down to just a few others. I think it is safe to say that this was not a case of murder, and it seem rather unlikely to me that a member of the 70 would have access to church funds that he could convert to his own use. A case of abuse would likely have landed in the courts prior to an excommunication so that seems not likely at all. This leads us to only one other place. So in attempting to tamp down rumours the PA department has only served to fuel them.

So how might this have been handled? A couple of things come to mind. They could have just released him and let the local Stake President deal with the matter. He could have been excommunicated and the new release simple state that he had been released from his calling for personal reasons and never mentioned the excommunication at all, it really isn't a public issue anyway.

But as it stands the way this was done would seem to add to the pain inflicted on hime and his family's and invite the worse sort of rumour mongering.

Thank goodness the world is blessed with your presence and wisdom, seeing that your unique gifts have led you to grace us with a critique on how the First Presidency and 12 apostles chose to handle this situation.

The only prophet, his counselors, and 12 apostles of the Lord...think about what you're saying.

Yeah, doesn't everyone know that there are a set of mortals on this planet who are so above reproach that it is sin to question any of their decisions? To even consider that this special group of men are subject to mortal frailties is blasphemy!

-Finrock

Didn't say that at all...I was just pointing out that the 15 who sat in counsel with this guy know a lot more about the situation than gkearney and who, because of their positions and stewardships, are much more likely to have inspiration in regards to how to handle the situation both in private and in the public realm than a guy commenting on their actions worlds away from the facts of the case.

I said nothing about them being above reproach. Nor did I say that it is a sin to question any of their decisions. I also never insinuated that they are beyond mortal frailties. Bitterness is getting the best of you, Finrock.

Hearing you spout sarcastic vitriol towards the brethren for no good reason in this particular case is no surprise.

"Spout sarcastic vitriol towards the brethren for no good reason"?

What actually happened: Sarcastic remark directed towards LDS Physician as a response to LDS Physician's sarcastic comment directed towards gkearney for no good reason.

Your sarcastic remark was a way to punish gkearney for a comment or a position that you felt was not acceptable based on your sociocentric paradigm. You felt that gkearney was questioning the "Brethren's" actions and this is a big "no, no" in your book. I was using sarcasm to point out how ridiculous your attempt to punish gkearney for his comment is. What gkearney said and even what I said is only offensive to people who venerate the leaders and place them on an unrealistic pedestal. You may not be able to see this, but the reality is that there is nothing immoral, unethical, wrong, or evil with anything that I have said or anything that gkearney has said.

There are people who will recognize how silly the venerations/idol worship paradigm is. There will be those who won't. My comments are for those who are beginning to see past the delusion of veneration and of idol worship or those who already are well past such nonsense.

-Finrock

[Red]

What do they mean by disillusionment anyway? Such funny word choice. I didn't know you could be exed for disillusionment. I can see being released for it, but... wouldn't disillusionment have to have apostasy as well to warrant exing?

[Red]

You don't suppose the church is claiming it's not apostasy by definition but it pretty much is apostasy? You know, like a fine hair cover up because the church is ultra sensitive about people leaving the church? They're very lax and tolerant with disciplinary councils nowadays. They're trying to keep membership and they don't enjoy limelight. I think whoever said that he may be the leak to MormonLeaks (or whatever that is) could be right. That's pretty much apostasy if you ask me, but the church could choose to call it something else.

[e-eye2.0]

I'm fairly certain that in such a matter the prophet, his counselors, and the 12 apostles would be quite involved in what the Public Affairs department put out. In any case, my apologies if I implied untruth!

Sadly, my experience with Public Affairs in the past would not confirm such a contention.

Interesting because I know the head of Public Affairs has said that when statements are issued they don't do it without running it all the way to the top for approval - I think I heard this back on a podcast from the guy and it was around the time the church was asked about energy healing. In this case I think it was very calculated.

[brlenox]

Thank goodness the world is blessed with your presence and wisdom, seeing that your unique gifts have led you to grace us with a critique on how the First Presidency and 12 apostles chose to handle this situation.

The only prophet, his counselors, and 12 apostles of the Lord...think about what you're saying.

Yeah, doesn't everyone know that there are a set of mortals on this planet who are so above reproach that it is sin to question any of their decisions? To even consider that this special group of men are subject to mortal frailties is blasphemy!

-Finrock

Didn't say that at all...I was just pointing out that the 15 who sat in counsel with this guy know a lot more about the situation than gkearney and who, because of their positions and stewardships, are much more likely to have inspiration in regards to how to handle the situation both in private and in the public realm than a guy commenting on their actions worlds away from the facts of the case.

I said nothing about them being above reproach. Nor did I say that it is a sin to question any of their decisions. I also never insinuated that they are beyond mortal frailties. Bitterness is getting the best of you, Finrock.

Hearing you spout sarcastic vitriol towards the brethren for no good reason in this particular case is no surprise.

"Spout sarcastic vitriol towards the brethren for no good reason"?

What actually happened: Sarcastic remark directed towards LDS Physician as a response to LDS Physician's sarcastic comment directed towards gkearney for no good reason.

Your sarcastic remark was a way to punish gkearney for a comment or a position that you felt was not acceptable based on your sociocentric paradigm. You felt that gkearney was questioning the "Brethren's" actions and this is a big "no, no" in your book. I was using sarcasm to point out how ridiculous your attempt to punish gkearney for his comment is. What gkearney said and even what I said is only offensive to people who venerate the leaders and place them on an unrealistic pedestal. You may not be able to see this, but the reality is that there is nothing immoral, unethical, wrong, or evil with anything that I have said or anything that gkearney has said.

There are people who will recognize how silly the venerations/idol worship paradigm is. There will be those who won't. My comments are for those who are beginning to see past the delusion of veneration and of idol worship or those who already are well past such nonsense.

-Finrock

Finrock,

I wonder if you would consider this one of those "venerations/idol worship" situations in your book.

Based on the fact that you consider verbal support of the Brethren as idolatry, I can't see how these verses from Acts would not be labeled as veneration and idol worship but let's just see where you go with this.

I've got a bunch of members and they hear that Peter, one of the twelve Apostles is coming to town. Here is the record:

Acts 5:15

12 And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon’s porch.

13 And of the rest durst no man join himself to them: but the people magnified them.

14 And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.)

15 Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them.

16 There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one.

17 ¶ Then the high priest rose up, and all they that were with him, (which is the sect of the Sadducees,) and were filled with indignation,

18 And laid their hands on the apostles, and put them in the common prison.

Now can you imagine these members clamoring and getting all excited that Peter, the head apostle is coming...coming to our little village here. Then this little group having the audacity to think perhaps just standing in the shadow of the man as he passes will heal them of their infirmities.

I was going to write some more but decided I just wanted to hear what you thought. Does this border on something idolatrous to you or is it something else?

[brlenox]

You don't suppose the church is claiming it's not apostasy by definition but it pretty much is apostasy? You know, like a fine hair cover up because the church is ultra sensitive about people leaving the church? They're very lax and tolerant with disciplinary councils nowadays. They're trying to keep membership and they don't enjoy limelight. I think whoever said that he may be the leak to MormonLeaks (or whatever that is) could be right. That's pretty much apostasy if you ask me, but the church could choose to call it something else.

What? "Lax and tolerant" nowadays? You really do not understand how this process works in the least. This is nothing shy of seeking revelation and receiving God's will. Unless you are claiming God has become "lax and tolerant" these days but who can guess what you might be thinking.

[Red]

You don't suppose the church is claiming it's not apostasy by definition but it pretty much is apostasy? You know, like a fine hair cover up because the church is ultra sensitive about people leaving the church? They're very lax and tolerant with disciplinary councils nowadays. They're trying to keep membership and they don't enjoy limelight. I think whoever said that he may be the leak to MormonLeaks (or whatever that is) could be right. That's pretty much apostasy if you ask me, but the church could choose to call it something else.

What? "Lax and tolerant" nowadays? You really do not understand how this process works in the least. This is nothing shy of seeking revelation and receiving God's will. Unless you are claiming God has become "lax and tolerant" these days but who can guess what you might be thinking.

For the love of all that is holy! Do you only know how to pick on people? You are so literal.

Didn't you say you were a bishop at one time?

[Finrock]

Yeah, doesn't everyone know that there are a set of mortals on this planet who are so above reproach that it is sin to question any of their decisions? To even consider that this special group of men are subject to mortal frailties is blasphemy!

-Finrock

Didn't say that at all...I was just pointing out that the 15 who sat in counsel with this guy know a lot more about the situation than gkearney and who, because of their positions and stewardships, are much more likely to have inspiration in regards to how to handle the situation both in private and in the public realm than a guy commenting on their actions worlds away from the facts of the case.

I said nothing about them being above reproach. Nor did I say that it is a sin to question any of their decisions. I also never insinuated that they are beyond mortal frailties. Bitterness is getting the best of you, Finrock.

Hearing you spout sarcastic vitriol towards the brethren for no good reason in this particular case is no surprise.

"Spout sarcastic vitriol towards the brethren for no good reason"?

What actually happened: Sarcastic remark directed towards LDS Physician as a response to LDS Physician's sarcastic comment directed towards gkearney for no good reason.

Your sarcastic remark was a way to punish gkearney for a comment or a position that you felt was not acceptable based on your sociocentric paradigm. You felt that gkearney was questioning the "Brethren's" actions and this is a big "no, no" in your book. I was using sarcasm to point out how ridiculous your attempt to punish gkearney for his comment is. What gkearney said and even what I said is only offensive to people who venerate the leaders and place them on an unrealistic pedestal. You may not be able to see this, but the reality is that there is nothing immoral, unethical, wrong, or evil with anything that I have said or anything that gkearney has said.

There are people who will recognize how silly the venerations/idol worship paradigm is. There will be those who won't. My comments are for those who are beginning to see past the delusion of veneration and of idol worship or those who already are well past such nonsense.

-Finrock

Finrock,

I wonder if you would consider this one of those "venerations/idol worship" situations in your book.

Based on the fact that you consider verbal support of the Brethren as idolatry, I can't see how these verses from Acts would not be labeled as veneration and idol worship but let's just see where you go with this.

I've got a bunch of members and they hear that Peter, one of the twelve Apostles is coming to town. Here is the record:

Acts 5:15

12 And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon’s porch.

13 And of the rest durst no man join himself to them: but the people magnified them.

14 And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.)

15 Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them.

16 There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one.

17 ¶ Then the high priest rose up, and all they that were with him, (which is the sect of the Sadducees,) and were filled with indignation,

18 And laid their hands on the apostles, and put them in the common prison.

Now can you imagine these members clamoring and getting all excited that Peter, the head apostle is coming...coming to our little village here. Then this little group having the audacity to think perhaps just standing in the shadow of the man as he passes will heal them of their infirmities.

I was going to write some more but decided I just wanted to hear what you thought. Does this border on something idolatrous to you or is it something else?

Start another thread and maybe I'll participate. I'll have to see how the Spirit directs me.

Before you start this other thread you may want to know that it is not a fact that I consider verbal support of the leaders of the Church as idolatry.

-Finrock

[brlenox]

You don't suppose the church is claiming it's not apostasy by definition but it pretty much is apostasy? You know, like a fine hair cover up because the church is ultra sensitive about people leaving the church? They're very lax and tolerant with disciplinary councils nowadays. They're trying to keep membership and they don't enjoy limelight. I think whoever said that he may be the leak to MormonLeaks (or whatever that is) could be right. That's pretty much apostasy if you ask me, but the church could choose to call it something else.

What? "Lax and tolerant" nowadays? You really do not understand how this process works in the least. This is nothing shy of seeking revelation and receiving God's will. Unless you are claiming God has become "lax and tolerant" these days but who can guess what you might be thinking.

For the love of all that is holy! Do you only know how to pick on people? You are so literal.

Didn't you say you were a bishop at one time?

I am literal but I try to be sweet about it. I was a Bishop, yes. I got tarred and feathered and run out on a rail though. I could never see what the problem was. Go figure.

However, respond to the message and not so much the messenger. Apparently, I am a little too rough around the edges for you. And as I mentioned, I'm the fat guy...I don't got many edges left.

Still do you not see the cavalier sense you put into these things. They have no sacred or spiritual worth to you. And again going with the context and implications of your statements you can grasp so much more about who your are and how the gospel is received.

Look at your post again:

You don't suppose the church is claiming it's not apostasy by definition but it pretty much is apostasy? You know, like a fine hair cover up because the church is ultra sensitive about people leaving the church? They're very lax and tolerant with disciplinary councils nowadays. They're trying to keep membership and they don't enjoy limelight. I think whoever said that he may be the leak to MormonLeaks (or whatever that is) could be right. That's pretty much apostasy if you ask me, but the church could choose to call it something else.

Putting your "lax and tolerant" back into the context of your entire statement we can determine how you really feel.
1.) Coverup - is this how you read the churches efforts? Are they posturing in a deceptive way to keep tricking the membership."
2.) Ultra sensitive - So the churches motivations as you see it are not about righteousness and doing the right thing it is because they have become "ultra-sensitive" they might tick someone off. Now sure they are going to be the least offensive as they can but that is just dealing with what they have to deal with in an easily offended society but they are not sidestepping responsibility and a desire to do the Lord's will.
3.) Lax and Tolerant - Okay I've already hit on this one but do you really think that the leadership of the church as a body are afraid of being miread and so they need to lower the bar...not what I have noticed.
4.) "Call it something else"...We know what apostasy is as a church...been dealing with it for almost two hundred years. Funny it usually starts by speaking ill of the brethren...they are not equivocating as you seem to think.

It's all about context and the implications of such.

[brlenox]

Start another thread and maybe I'll participate. I'll have to see how the Spirit directs me.

Before you start this other thread you may want to know that it is not a fact that I consider verbal support of the leaders of the Church as idolatry.

-Finrock

Then what actions are you observing that you are always claiming idolatry and veneration concerning the things I and others post on LDSFF. I sustain the General Authorities of the church. I have said so multiple times. Other have as well. You have then made the charges off of the words we write and charged us with idolatry and veneration. ( I don't even know how veneration became an issue...but there it is) All you can see is verbal support - so what is driving your comments? Are you that little tonttu hiding in my bushes at night spying on my acts of veneration?

[Red]

You don't suppose the church is claiming it's not apostasy by definition but it pretty much is apostasy? You know, like a fine hair cover up because the church is ultra sensitive about people leaving the church? They're very lax and tolerant with disciplinary councils nowadays. They're trying to keep membership and they don't enjoy limelight. I think whoever said that he may be the leak to MormonLeaks (or whatever that is) could be right. That's pretty much apostasy if you ask me, but the church could choose to call it something else.

What? "Lax and tolerant" nowadays? You really do not understand how this process works in the least. This is nothing shy of seeking revelation and receiving God's will. Unless you are claiming God has become "lax and tolerant" these days but who can guess what you might be thinking.

For the love of all that is holy! Do you only know how to pick on people? You are so literal.

Didn't you say you were a bishop at one time?

I am literal but I try to be sweet about it. I was a Bishop, yes. I got tarred and feathered and run out on a rail though. I could never see what the problem was. Go figure.

However, respond to the message and not so much the messenger. Apparently, I am a little too rough around the edges for you. And as I mentioned, I'm the fat guy...I don't got many edges left.

Still do you not see the cavalier sense you put into these things. They have no sacred or spiritual worth to you. And again going with the context and implications of your statements you can grasp so much more about who your are and how the gospel is received.

Look at your post again:

You don't suppose the church is claiming it's not apostasy by definition but it pretty much is apostasy? You know, like a fine hair cover up because the church is ultra sensitive about people leaving the church? They're very lax and tolerant with disciplinary councils nowadays. They're trying to keep membership and they don't enjoy limelight. I think whoever said that he may be the leak to MormonLeaks (or whatever that is) could be right. That's pretty much apostasy if you ask me, but the church could choose to call it something else.

Putting your "lax and tolerant" back into the context of your entire statement we can determine how you really feel.
1.) Coverup - is this how you read the churches efforts? Are they posturing in a deceptive way to keep tricking the membership."
2.) Ultra sensitive - So the churches motivations as you see it are not about righteousness and doing the right thing it is because they have become "ultra-sensitive" they might tick someone off. Now sure they are going to be the least offensive as they can but that is just dealing with what they have to deal with in an easily offended society but they are not sidestepping responsibility and a desire to do the Lord's will.
3.) Lax and Tolerant - Okay I've already hit on this one but do you really think that the leadership of the church as a body are afraid of being miread and so they need to lower the bar...not what I have noticed.
4.) "Call it something else"...We know what apostasy is as a church...been dealing with it for almost two hundred years. Funny it usually starts by speaking ill of the brethren...they are not equivocating as you seem to think.

It's all about context and the implications of such.

We don't even speak the same language. I can't even respond because I know it's wasted time. I finally had a light bulb moment in regard to Fin's signature: you can't reason with a wolf. Apparently that's a Rewcox saying. There IS a wolf in your picture and a mention of a wolf in sheep's clothing. Are you quite certain you're not Rewcox? He was as rude and lacking in compassion as you are.

There's only one thing I wish to clarify, and that's because I'm a decent human being. I did not call you the fat guy. Go back and look at what I said. I said I am expecting, at any moment, for YOU to call ME fat and ugly. Because the words you say to others are so blatantly rude that I can expect it from you.

I'm sorry, but you're a poor profiler.

[brlenox]

We don't even speak the same language. I can't even respond because I know it's wasted time. I finally had a light bulb moment in regard to Fin's signature: you can't reason with a wolf. Apparently that's a Rewcox saying. There IS a wolf in your picture and a mention of a wolf in sheep's clothing. Are you quite certain you're not Rewcox? He was as rude and lacking in compassion as you are.

There's only one thing I wish to clarify, and that's because I'm a decent human being. I did not call you the fat guy. Go back and look at what I said. I said I am expecting, at any moment, for YOU to call ME fat and ugly. Because the words you say to others are so blatantly rude that I can expect it from you.

I'm sorry, but you're a poor profiler.

You are a joy, I have to admit...I was simply playing games with your wording. If you go back and look at my response and put it in context you will note the Quotes around your remark and then me applying it to myself.

But that's part of the issues these days...I know who I am and what I am. You can walk up to me off of the street and say "Whoa, dang...you be one hefty dude bro". I wouldn't find that the least bit offensive. I am that and I am comfortable with it. My mom once took me aside and got all serious on me and said I should sit down she was going to tell me something and then she revealed her and dad didn't get married right away ( couple of years) after I was conceived. I just laughed and said you mean I am a bass turd child. She just couldn't see why I wasn't all upset about it and finally I said, ten minutes ago I didn't know this and now that I do, I am no different than I was 10 minutes ago ... well except I am a bass turd now....ha ha ha. Needless to say, I think she was a little confused but hey.

When you are honest with yourself and true to yourself nobody can get to you. I tell you, you can't do context, you are a flaming liberal Mormon, and you speak of things of which you have no experience and you get all charged up because you are nurturing some opinion of yourself that doesn't jive with what others see. Maybe you are all of these things, maybe you are none of these things...but your sense of not knowing yourself and not accepting yourself for who you are allows people like me to yank your chain whenever I feel like getting a chuckle and I can do it anytime just for the heck of it. Now that is not my usual motivation but maybe once or twice ... well maybe three times or more...but not always but sometimes getting a bated response can be a bit entertaining. Decent human being she says...ha ha ha...oh my goodness.

[harakim]

"...carried out in complete confidence..."

We don't share why this happened because privacy...but let us tell you why it didn't happen, because that's ok.

You realize this is a no win situation. Had the Church not said anything it would have leaked out someway or another. (cough Mormon Wiki Leaks, social media via "gossip" etc) Don't you think people would question why he all of a sudden was not performing his calling as a 70? So they are danged if they say something and danged if they didn't. There would always be those who say the Church is "hiding" things had they not. It's sad regardless of the reasons why, and I hold NO judgement. I only hope for Brother Hamula's best interest at heart. May he be in the process of working his way back to the fold in full membership.

...complete confidence...

You must have stopped reading before this part:

In rare cases," the article noted, "the decision of a disciplinary council may be shared publicly to prevent others from being harmed through misinformation."

Then there's the third purpose here:

Elder M. Russell Ballard, a senior member of the Quorum of the Twelve, has described the three purposes of church councils.

"Members sometimes ask why church disciplinary councils are held," he said in a 1990 article in the Ensign, the church's official magazine. "The purpose is threefold: to save the soul of the transgressor, to protect the innocent, and to safeguard the Church’s purity, integrity, and good name."

[marc]

To quote and to reiterate:

"All church discipline is carried out in complete confidence," according to an article on the church's official Mormon Newsroom website. "Church leaders have a solemn responsibility to keep confidential all information they receive in confessions and interviews. To protect that confidence, the church will not discuss the proceedings of a disciplinary council."

"In rare cases," the article noted, "the decision of a disciplinary council may be shared publicly to prevent others from being harmed through misinformation."

All church discipline is carried out in complete confidence

In rare cases," the article noted, "the decision of a disciplinary council may be shared publicly to prevent others from being harmed through misinformation.

All church discipline...

In rare cases...

All...

So not ALL...however anyone wishes to justify it.

NOT. ALL...

Their words, not mine.

Furthermore, it isn't even about the "decision," as they state. What they are sharing is something other than the "decision of a disciplinary council," which they explicitly state they don't share. The decision is that he was excommunicated. The reasons or lack thereof, in this case, breached their solemn responsibility to keep confidential, etc, etc.

I'm not losing sleep over this, though. Really. What he did or didn't do is none of my business. Why not just lock this thread or better yet, delete it?

[brlenox]

To quote and to reiterate:

"All church discipline is carried out in complete confidence," according to an article on the church's official Mormon Newsroom website. "Church leaders have a solemn responsibility to keep confidential all information they receive in confessions and interviews. To protect that confidence, the church will not discuss the proceedings of a disciplinary council."

"In rare cases," the article noted, "the decision of a disciplinary council may be shared publicly to prevent others from being harmed through misinformation."

All church discipline is carried out in complete confidence

In rare cases," the article noted, "the decision of a disciplinary council may be shared publicly to prevent others from being harmed through misinformation.

All church discipline...

In rare cases...

All...

So not ALL...however anyone wishes to justify it.

NOT. ALL...

Their words, not mine.

Furthermore, it isn't even about the "decision," as they state. What they are sharing is something other than the "decision of a disciplinary council," which they explicitly state they don't share. The decision is that he was excommunicated. The reasons or lack thereof, in this case, breached their solemn responsibility to keep confidential, etc, etc.

I'm not losing sleep over this, though. Really. What he did or didn't do is none of my business. Why not just lock this thread or better yet, delete it?

Ah yes, the old make an offender for a word defense. It is obvious what they meant. Et tu brute, et tu

[Robin Hood]

First, that you compare me to rewcox is quite a compliment - another TBM that was not ever critical of the Brethren.
:ymsick: :-BD
I suspect that my first response should own up to the fact that I am a putz in certain situations. (maybe all the time) I can be painfully patient with those who are innocent in knowledge and who err on the part of ignorance. However, there is one style of response that I can be quick and fierce in my defense.

It has ever been my pattern, practice, preference, passion to testify of the distinct and singular brethren that have been called to lead this church. Most often my harshest tone is in response to those who should know better, who have adequate understanding, or who make certain claims like having their calling and election made sure, that then turn around and willingly allow Satan to guide their tongue in defamation of the Apostles and prophets and make liars of themselves.

I am of course surprised why anyone seems oblivious to the fact that they seem to not be able to pass up the opportunity to put down the brethren. Take Finrock for instance, sometimes he can participate in a discussion and seem a reasonable sort. However, practically everytime any sort or support for the brethren is manifest he cannot, simply cannot stop himself from commenting. Always negative and undermining.

Now the question I ask you is why his response, obviously undermining and disrespectful, skirting under your particular line of offense. Why are you not asking him why is he so bent on speaking evil of he Lords anointed. Why does it not matter to you that he is acting on the part of a burgeoning apostate tendency and that he does this unfailingly. Why does it not concern you that he might be the cause for weakening someone else's testimony of the brethren. Lots of that going around these days and I do not understand the saints who cannot see the risk to the soul of those who undermine the brethren and the risk to those who might be persuaded by their conversation.

Perhaps I am the putz, or just plain stupid. Maybe I come off in your book as harsh and critical but I would rather stand here as the stupid, harsh critical, putz of dubious social talent but be all those things in testimony and defense of the brethren than to fly under the radar by limiting my critical comments to the brethren as it seems is more common.

There are others such as Finrock and a few others who know better and I am simply the voice to offset their bad manners.

I didn't really find it undermining or disrespectful. But I also don't think that there's a single person on the earth that's better than I, nor am I better than anyone else. I think this is how the Lord intends his people to be, whether they are apostle or Baptist. I can't put words into Fin's mouth, but those were my thoughts when I read his words. I let myself be guided by the spirit as often as possible. Fin's comments have never made me feel as though the spirit were not also with him. I can't say I've read everything he's ever written. I do not know him enough to want to defend him, but I can tell you this: I feel Christ when I read his words and I can feel goodness, but your words make me feel darkness. I don't think our Savior would have us be as harsh as you are. That's why I ask what has happened in your past to make you this way. Someone must have done you wrong at some point and this is how you make up for it. I hope you can find peace with whatever it is so you no longer have that wedge between you and the Savior.

Well, there is no question that I am a flawed character in many ways and at times I can be too direct for many. ?(Harsh as you would say)However as far as my past, I have led a charmed life in many respects. I have never had anyone that I can recollect do anything to me that was even in the least bit harmful. I realize it may disappoint you that I wasn't beat up in some dark alley somewhere at least once in my life....which reminds me there was that time in fourth grade on the playground when Eva Whitlock kicked my booty. Scarred me for life I'm sure.

However, truth be told, in spite of others in my family having had some unfortunate things happen to them, the Lord has always blessed me to always be somewhere else when things were going sideways.

As for Finrock, I'm not inclined to say that everything he says is wrong, a lot of it but not all of it. In fact I practically never engage Finrock since our interaction on this thread here where he proved himself to be untruthful several times over:

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=45629

I now only show up for the most part to counter his overwhelming negativity for the Brethren - his stand on the General Authorities is pretty much peppered throughout the forum.

If his statement and the dripping sarcasm it showcased did not bother you then there is cause for you to review your own allegiances. No person who claims the Apostles and Prophets of the Church of Jesus Christ are misled, knows Jesus Christ. If those where your thoughts then I can see why you find light in his words and why we will find ourselves on the opposite sides of many discussions as has been the case.

You said misled. Did you mean they make mistakes? Or maybe that's what your brain said that Fin was saying. Fin (and correct me if I'm wrong because I'm generalizing what I know he usually says) says they make mistakes. The prophet and apostles are not perfect. They make mistakes. They made a mistake when they ex-ed Avraham Gileadi. Be careful putting prophets and apostles on pedestals, as they have not died for a remission of our sins. You sound like you worship them. (Note that I didn't say you DID worship them. I know where you're going with your thoughts, haha).

Avraham Gileadi was excommunicated by his Stake leaders, not by the Brethren.

[Red]

Pardon me. I supposed that the GA gives final approval on excommunication. I also supposed that regardless of the authoritative body, everyone can make a mistake. Regardless, the point is that no mortal is infallible. But by all means, cross hairs if it pleases you.

[brlenox]

Pardon me. I supposed that the GA gives final approval on excommunication. I also supposed that regardless of the authoritative body, everyone can make a mistake. Regardless, the point is that no mortal is infallible. But by all means, cross hairs if it pleases you.

Oh, I get it. If the brethren make a mistake its the evening news but if you make a mistake it is crossing hairs.

[BeNotDeceived]

Pardon me. I supposed that the GA gives final approval on excommunication. I also supposed that regardless of the authoritative body, everyone can make a mistake. Regardless, the point is that no mortal is infallible. But by all means, cross hairs if it pleases you.

Do you mean splitting hairs?

[shadow]

To quote and to reiterate:

"All church discipline is carried out in complete confidence," according to an article on the church's official Mormon Newsroom website. "Church leaders have a solemn responsibility to keep confidential all information they receive in confessions and interviews. To protect that confidence, the church will not discuss the proceedings of a disciplinary council."

"In rare cases," the article noted, "the decision of a disciplinary council may be shared publicly to prevent others from being harmed through misinformation."

All church discipline is carried out in complete confidence

In rare cases," the article noted, "the decision of a disciplinary council may be shared publicly to prevent others from being harmed through misinformation.

All church discipline...

In rare cases...

All...

So not ALL...however anyone wishes to justify it.

NOT. ALL...

Their words, not mine.

Furthermore, it isn't even about the "decision," as they state. What they are sharing is something other than the "decision of a disciplinary council," which they explicitly state they don't share. The decision is that he was excommunicated. The reasons or lack thereof, in this case, breached their solemn responsibility to keep confidential, etc, etc.

I'm not losing sleep over this, though. Really. What he did or didn't do is none of my business. Why not just lock this thread or better yet, delete it?

Earlier is suggested you didn't pay attention. I'll correct it to say you simply don't understand.
The context of "confidence" and of "confidential" was specified that it was referring to "all info they receive in confessions and interviews". It was also stated that the church will not discuss the proceedings of a disciplinary council. We have no idea what took place in that council. We don't know if the Elder was pleading innocent or if he admitted he was guilty. We don't know any of the circumstances. We have no idea what he did. Why are we so clueless? Because the proceedings were not discussed. You somehow think they have been because we know it wasn't for apostasy, but that's one heck of a leap you're making.

You make a claim the church is wrong then you want the thread locked so nobody can dispute your silly accusations. You think you're some sort of authority figure??

[marc]

To quote and to reiterate:

"All church discipline is carried out in complete confidence," according to an article on the church's official Mormon Newsroom website. "Church leaders have a solemn responsibility to keep confidential all information they receive in confessions and interviews. To protect that confidence, the church will not discuss the proceedings of a disciplinary council."

"In rare cases," the article noted, "the decision of a disciplinary council may be shared publicly to prevent others from being harmed through misinformation."

All church discipline is carried out in complete confidence

In rare cases," the article noted, "the decision of a disciplinary council may be shared publicly to prevent others from being harmed through misinformation.

All church discipline...

In rare cases...

All...

So not ALL...however anyone wishes to justify it.

NOT. ALL...

Their words, not mine.

Furthermore, it isn't even about the "decision," as they state. What they are sharing is something other than the "decision of a disciplinary council," which they explicitly state they don't share. The decision is that he was excommunicated. The reasons or lack thereof, in this case, breached their solemn responsibility to keep confidential, etc, etc.

I'm not losing sleep over this, though. Really. What he did or didn't do is none of my business. Why not just lock this thread or better yet, delete it?

Earlier is suggested you didn't pay attention. I'll correct it to say you simply don't understand.
The context of "confidence" and of "confidential" was specified that it was referring to "all info they receive in confessions and interviews". It was also stated that the church will not discuss the proceedings of a disciplinary council. We have no idea what took place in that council. We don't know if the Elder was pleading innocent or if he admitted he was guilty. We don't know any of the circumstances. We have no idea what he did. Why are we so clueless? Because the proceedings were not discussed. You somehow think they have been because we know it wasn't for apostasy, but that's one heck of a leap you're making.

You make a claim the church is wrong then you want the thread locked so nobody can dispute your silly accusations. You think you're some sort of authority figure??

No. No. And no. But I won't explain further. I don't want to engage further. I can't come to this forum anymore without the spirit of contention arising and it doesn't suit me, whatever anyone may think of me. I don't care. I only feel it when I visit this forum, which is ironic. So go ahead and heap all you wish upon me. Have a nice day.

[mcusick]

You are all wrong.

Coffee.

It's obvious it was the coffee.

[brlenox]

To quote and to reiterate:

"All church discipline is carried out in complete confidence," according to an article on the church's official Mormon Newsroom website. "Church leaders have a solemn responsibility to keep confidential all information they receive in confessions and interviews. To protect that confidence, the church will not discuss the proceedings of a disciplinary council."

"In rare cases," the article noted, "the decision of a disciplinary council may be shared publicly to prevent others from being harmed through misinformation."

All church discipline is carried out in complete confidence

In rare cases," the article noted, "the decision of a disciplinary council may be shared publicly to prevent others from being harmed through misinformation.

All church discipline...

In rare cases...

All...

So not ALL...however anyone wishes to justify it.

NOT. ALL...

Their words, not mine.

Furthermore, it isn't even about the "decision," as they state. What they are sharing is something other than the "decision of a disciplinary council," which they explicitly state they don't share. The decision is that he was excommunicated. The reasons or lack thereof, in this case, breached their solemn responsibility to keep confidential, etc, etc.

I'm not losing sleep over this, though. Really. What he did or didn't do is none of my business. Why not just lock this thread or better yet, delete it?

Earlier is suggested you didn't pay attention. I'll correct it to say you simply don't understand.
The context of "confidence" and of "confidential" was specified that it was referring to "all info they receive in confessions and interviews". It was also stated that the church will not discuss the proceedings of a disciplinary council. We have no idea what took place in that council. We don't know if the Elder was pleading innocent or if he admitted he was guilty. We don't know any of the circumstances. We have no idea what he did. Why are we so clueless? Because the proceedings were not discussed. You somehow think they have been because we know it wasn't for apostasy, but that's one heck of a leap you're making.

You make a claim the church is wrong then you want the thread locked so nobody can dispute your silly accusations. You think you're some sort of authority figure??

No. No. And no. But I won't explain further. I don't want to engage further. I can't come to this forum anymore without the spirit of contention arising and it doesn't suit me, whatever anyone may think of me. I don't care. I only feel it when I visit this forum, which is ironic. So go ahead and heap all you wish upon me. Have a nice day.

It's a discussion board. We place our thoughts out there and then others engage them. Sometimes we agree and sometimes we don't. I suggest that people do not understand the spirit of contention and many times people are simply calling the uncomfortable state of their own defensiveness contentious.

What value would there be in a forum environment if we all simply came on here and stated over and over "yup, I agree with that".

The only real point I am seeking to understand is your own disconnect. An exceptionally reasonable person, very pleasant and polite. Yet in this case, what drew you into the discussion was not a reasoned evaluation of what occurred with the situation with Elder Hamula but was instead a knee jerk response where you verbalized a preconceived angst against the brethren.

It is because of the fact that when we have contrived a preconceived notion that from our perspective it appears always right and we can't even see when we have erred in the application. However, then someone like Shadow comes along and illustrates clearly how incoherent our preconceived notion appears when reasonable analytics are brought to bear. This then causes something to well up inside of you. If it is inside of you it is your own. People can exhibit a contentious spirit but it is because it is their contention not because it is yours. I do not think you seem to possess a contentious spirit, however I think you have a sense of discomfort when you are called upon to defend a position that may seem untenable and you misconstrue that discomfort which is yours as a contentious spirit.

[larsenb]

. . . . . My mom once took me aside and got all serious on me and said I should sit down she was going to tell me something and then she revealed her and dad didn't get married right away ( couple of years) after I was conceived. I just laughed and said you mean I am a bass turd child. She just couldn't see why I wasn't all upset about it and finally I said, ten minutes ago I didn't know this and now that I do, I am no different than I was 10 minutes ago ... well except I am a bass turd now....ha ha ha. Needless to say, I think she was a little confused but hey . . . . . .

Too much self-denigration, brlenox. I can see you as a bastard, but certainly not as a bass TURD. Come on now . . . ;) (wink emoticon)

HA!!! I just posted this with the actual 'b' word in it and it came out as 'cupcake'. What's with that?? Must be a little algorithm, BrianM instuted to keep his forum clean. Poor guy, he must have really sullied his mind by making up the table with all the swear words he wanted to monitor.