GA Excommunicated

[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.

[brlenox]

. . . . . 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 cupcake, 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.

Hence why I had to use the auditory equivalent of bass turd. You'd think he would include turd in his list - make it twinkie or something. Like I'm a bass twinkie or something. However, as it is, I can put a turd anywhere I want. Hoping at least for a descent representative like a Bristol #4 of course. Those # 5, 6, and 7's really don't qualify. [-X

[marc]

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.

Thank you for this genuine reply. I let my wife read my initial post and then my replies just to make sure that I'm not imagining things or misconstruing anything. She observed that my initial reply was a bit snarky. I apologize for this. I suppose, I should have just saved the energy and clearly stated that in my opinion, the word "All" used so much in the article should have been replaced with the word "most." That is the sum of it. You know as well as I do that there is a difference between discussing differing views and then making it personal. IF anyone can show me where any of my posts were getting personal and/or judgmental, I am happy to concede. I genuinely have nothing against the leaders of our church. As a matter of face, all my posts have been in defense of the GA excommunicated. If it was me being excommunicated, I would just want people to leave it alone. Or maybe he and his children and family at large don't mind people talking about him while he sorts this out and that is why this thread persists, because after all, it's just a discussion.

[freedomforall]

Why speculate?

Because this is what many Mormons do. They like to find dirt and spread gossip. For this very reason the wife of this brother is paying the worst price.

Gossip

not go up and down as a talebearer, Lev. 19:16.

Keep thy tongue from evil, Ps. 34:13.

talebearer revealeth secrets, Prov. 11:13 (20:19).

words of a talebearer are as wounds, Prov. 18:8.

Whoso keepeth … his tongue keepeth his soul from troubles, Prov. 21:23.

where there is no talebearer, the strife ceaseth, Prov. 26:20.

every idle word … give account thereof, Matt. 12:36.

which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man, Matt. 15:11.

condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned, Luke 6:37.

He that is without sin … let him first cast a stone, John 8:7.

no corrupt communication … but that which is good, Eph. 4:29.

tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not, 1 Tim. 5:13.

If any … bridleth not his tongue, James 1:26.

tongue can no man tame, James 3:8.

Speak not evil one of another, James 4:11.

refrain his tongue from evil, 1 Pet. 3:10.

did indulge themselves … in babblings, Alma 1:32.

go about spreading rumors and contentions, Hel. 16:22.

Thou shalt not speak evil of thy neighbor, D&C 42:27.

cease to find fault one with another, D&C 88:124.

[freedomforall]

"...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.

Good point marc.
Telling us why it didn't happen pretty much tells us why it did. And I think that once a person is in a place of authority then some rights to privacy should be denied. Much Iike the church announcing his excommunication vs just releasing him.

The only reason I would care to know the why is if it was a sin that's also against the law of the land...like abuses or theft. Only because I hate it when the church (members) keeps these sins under wraps and expects people to not press charges and just forgive.

Doctrine and Covenants 64:10
10 I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men.

There is vindictiveness and there is Christ-like love.

Did Christ likewise condemn the woman caught in adultery?

Should he have asked others to press charges? Should he have put her to shame and subject to ridicule and scoffing?

Christ says we must forgive...and that if we judge harshly we will be judged likewise.

This is our choices.

[freedomforall]

"...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...

We are to forgive no matter the offense as hard as it may be. We are not the judge.

Take Harry Reid, a fellow Mormon, for instance. That man makes my blood boil. I believe he has been proven to be as crooked as a dog's hind leg, yet I must strive to have Christ-like love for him. Ain't easy.

[freedomforall]

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.

Like that of which exists right here on this forum, right?

[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 cupcake, 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.

Hence why I had to use the auditory equivalent of bass turd. You'd think he would include turd in his list - make it twinkie or something. Like I'm a bass twinkie or something. However, as it is, I can put a turd anywhere I want. Hoping at least for a descent representative like a Bristol #4 of course. Those # 5, 6, and 7's really don't qualify. [-X

Brian definitely needs to add 'turd' to his list . . . closely followed by Bristol's, regardless of the ranking. Question I have, is why on earth do you seem to know all about Bristols? I had to look it up. /:)

[jmack]

I figure he was in the south pacific for too long a time. Perhaps his spouse didn't want to accompany him to New Zealand after the first year or so.... ...grand babies being born and that sort of thing.

Lonliness is a real situation at the top and many try (and fail) to find solace in flirtations with attractive and game potential partners.
My guess is he came home, and went to the Brethern with a repentant attitude and wanting to make things right.

So in speculating we go to 'it's probably the wife's fault'. How is this even a possibility, I'm certain he would not have been allowed to serve if his wife had refused to go. If you're going to speculate on why he was excommunicated, don't drag his wife into it with zero to go on.

[diligently seeking]

To quote and to reiterate:













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.

"..Reasonable analytics are brought to bear..."

Oh the difficulty an injury of heart mind and soul in this second estate when it comes to thinking truth needs to be found going through the too often murky obstacle filled waters of "reasonable analytics" I mention this because often times in our attempts to be persuasive there is that little or allot of evil behind "the smiling eyes" of what we think is "reasonable" that motivates the points we want to drive home...

Why can't we strive to live in the here and now to be Zion individual(s) where pure intelligence God's ungrafted word is understood and received by us? Why do we have to muck through the meyer of debate? Do we have to? I get that truth needs to be defended. However, it never needs to be defended at the cost of the individuals heart being stirred up, and then in return stiring up the hearts of the recipients of his or her message. I also understand that truth according to where the condition of our heart is can set a person free or pierce to the center.
"President Spencer W. Kimball often quoted an unknown author: “The greatest battle of life is fought out within the silent chambers of the soul. A victory on the inside of a man’s heart is worth a hundred conquests on the battlefields of life..."

I understand salvation "at stake" is serious business as truth is taught and defende in the right way...

Too often, however-- myself, others ALL of us at some point rationalize being in a state of war mentality when it comes to "reasoning" with one another. Contention is as discernible as smoke rising from a smoldering fire when that occurs on this forum... There is great danger in familiarity and comfort with this approach--yes?

*For the record---( not that he needs me to share this) light and truth comes to me when Marc shares on this forum*.

We all at differing points and frequency to one degree or another cut off ears or pieces of ears as emotion rises to the surface from our desire to defend truth... (Please see 4 minute video below)

We can ALL do better.


Converted = being healed = striving through word thought and deed to be like our Master healer...


https://youtu.be/1lv7tOh-8oY

[mcusick]

. . . . . 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 cupcake, 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.

Test post

Hebrews 12:8

But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

[freedomforall]

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

But to judge them without sure knowledge is irresponsible and foolish.

[freedomforall]

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

You've never gotten it and I suspect never will. You consider yourself as one person capable of being guided by the spirit and yet somehow question that 15 Apostles having far better spiritual capacity than you have ever manifest could as a body mistake the inspiration of the spirit. If one were unclear at any given moment the unified, prayerful process and seeking of the spirit would unite them.

I have conducted disciplinary councils in the church and have observed my perception changed in a moment when the spirit manifest what the Lord wanted. You have not.

Thus having no experience, it is shear folly for you to comment on something that you do not understand, cannot understand, and most likely will never understand unless your attitude changed.

I have observed few activities in the church where the unifying aspect of the spirits direction is more palpable and discernable than in something so significant considering it's measure is the worth of a soul as the unity in a disciplinary council.

What is it from your past, BRLenox, that makes you speak so harshly to others? And pass judgment so quickly? Why are you so sharp? I see sparks of inspired moments and then weird judgments out of left field that don't mesh with the inspiration. Sometimes I see sentiments that you share with Finrock and other times i feel like Rewcox has returned. It's very confusing.

First, that you compare me to rewcox is quite a compliment - another TBM that was not ever critical of the Brethren.

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.

There are and have been people on this forum claiming to have their calling and election, yet badmouth church leaders. Frankly, the two don't mix whatsoever. The church is a series of stepping stones that if followed led to one's calling and election. But the church doesn't merely go away once that calling is achieved.
The way some of these folks talk is not in line with what would be expected from someone being as near to being the Savior, himself, that it is appalling.
Some even come here and blab all over the internet of how they have their calling. Whatever happened to humility?

Matthew 23:12
12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

[freedomforall]

I figure he was in the south pacific for too long a time. Perhaps his spouse didn't want to accompany him to New Zealand after the first year or so.... ...grand babies being born and that sort of thing.

Lonliness is a real situation at the top and many try (and fail) to find solace in flirtations with attractive and game potential partners.
My guess is he came home, and went to the Brethern with a repentant attitude and wanting to make things right.

Say what?

[Thinker]

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?

It is interesting that the rule of confidentiality is broken to state that of all things.

The definition for disillusionment is "disappointed in someone or something that one discovers to be less good than one had believed."
"Dis-illusionment" also looks like "without illusion."
So, it seems, according to church statement, he was excommunicated, but not because he became without illusion. He still has illusion and has not apostacized from the church, so nobody get any idea about being dis-illusioned.

Why make such a statement, especially when confidentiality was sacrificed to say it??

[brlenox]

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.

You know as well as I do that there is a difference between discussing differing views and then making it personal. IF anyone can show me where any of my posts were getting personal and/or judgmental, I am happy to concede. I genuinely have nothing against the leaders of our church. As a matter of face, all my posts have been in defense of the GA excommunicated. If it was me being excommunicated, I would just want people to leave it alone. Or maybe he and his children and family at large don't mind people talking about him while he sorts this out and that is why this thread persists, because after all, it's just a discussion.

And thank you for taking the response in the manner of intent. I was direct and you handled it with dignity. Frankly, I don't think anyone thinks that as a rule you are judgmental or that you have a habit of making things personal. Certainly not the focus of my post.

My focus was a perceived disconnect between this person who is pained in the environment of passionate repartee, disabled by discontent and yet is additionally thoughtful in practically all engagements, charitable, pleasant, and gracious. However, for some reason when some opportunities arise to cast dispersion's or voice a spirit of doubt in the direction of the Brethren this mild mannered person dishes up a little stink on the ideology of putting your trust in the Brethren or in following the prophet as if the manner in which those of us on this forum express our sustainment of them is akin to some foul form of evil corruption. It is the one incongruency, the one blemish in your porcelain demeanor and it never ceases to cause me to raise an eyebrow.

As far as your sustainment of Elder Hamula, I think that is the appropriate response - let it be. It is between him and the Lord. However, there is the one little niggling uneasiness in the back of my head. The most sustained of all of the brethren I have ever noted on this forum was Elder George Lee. It was simply because the Brethren had disciplined him and thus he was not on their team anymore that he had achieved an iconic status in being cast out. I was amazed at the bias and how the doors of acceptance swing wide open for the disenfranchised but slam shut on the faithful leaders of the church. I was hoping that it was not this that may have fueled some folks acceptance. Does he now become a Grant Palmer or a Michael Quinn or Tom Phillips for some perceived kinship in ostracization...well I hope that is not the way of it....and as you say after all it's just a discussion.