GA Excommunicated

[MMbelieve]

"...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.

[Mark]

This Brother is in my High Priest Group. There is really no reason or need for anyone to know anything about any particulars. The only productive take away should be that this is a critical step in the direction of repentance and restoration for this good Brother. Our Savior is ever merciful and loving. May be follow that example in our dealings with others who are in need of the Lords healing hand. And that pretty well encompasses us all to some degree.

[kittycat51]

"...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.

[marc]

"...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...

[brlenox]

"...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...

/:) 8-|

[gkearney]

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.

[shadow]

"...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.

It's really not as difficult as you think, you just have to pay attention.
From the article-
"In rare cases," the article noted, "the decision of a disciplinary council may be shared publicly to prevent others from being harmed through misinformation."

In this case, which is rare, it might have been publicly noted that it wasn't apostasy simply because he was a church leader and what he taught in public isn't in question. But it doesn't really matter because "complete confidence" is different than complete confidentiality, which wasn't what the church said. The church said "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." And the church hasn't.

[Zowieink]

It just means that none of us are immune from temptation. With this brother, in a high and holy calling, to be tempted and fall should be a wake up call for all of us.

He was stake president in the stake next to mine. A fine fellow. Whatever the reason, and it really doesn't matter, I wish and pray that he will traverse the difficult waters ahead and return to full fellowship. Can you imagine how wonderful that day will be! To be completely clean from all sin, having chosen the most difficult road. I hope the day comes quickly for him and that his family will support him no matter what.

[drtanner]

Philippines 3:13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,

14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

My prayers and love are with Elder Hamula and his family. I hope we can do our part to help him and his family press towards the mark for the prize, even Christ Jesus and forget those things which are behind and reach for those things which are before.

[Elizabeth]

"Elder Ballard taught that Church disciplinary councils are held out of “love and concern, with the salvation and blessing of the transgressor being the foremost consideration.”

He taught that the action is “not intended to be the end of the process; rather, it is a way to reach out in love and is designed to be the beginning of an opportunity to return to full fellowship and to the full blessings of the Church. ... The desired result is that the person will make whatever changes are necessary to return fully and completely to be able to receive the marvelous blessings of the Church,” he said."

https://www.lds.org/church/news/general ... n?lang=eng
.

[marc]

No, I did pay attention. But I digress.

[brianj]

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.

There was no open discussion of George P Lee committing sexual sin when he was excommunicated in 1989. The first the public heard about it was from a report in 1993, and charges weren't filed until 1993 or 1994. That being said, I think that felonious sexual assualt is too far out of character for Brother Hamula.

And I have difficulty believing the church would have announced as much as they did without Brother Hamula's approval.

[Red]

And yet Harry Reid still roams the church halls... (I couldn't resist)

[djinwa]

Please pray for his wife. The pain and public humiliation she is experiencing right now must be almost unbearable for a righteous daughter of our Heavenly Father to have to endure, especially at her age and station in life, all because of something her husband has done.

True. Women marry a man for status, and when he loses his power, they are humiliated. At least I think that is what you are saying.

Church is for status, just as Jesus wanted.

[LukeAir2008]

Sad.

What does the church correlation department do?

https://www.lds.org/manual/church-histo ... n?lang=eng

[Spaced_Out]

its funny how almost everyone jumps to the conclusion that this man sinned and needs to repent, no one has heard what he did yet most jump to assumptions. (I know i will get ridiculed for say this) but do you think its possible the excommunication was done in error? Not a single person took that into consideration nor i doubt many will. There have been some men of God that has been excommunicated. Maybe we should take our own religious belief into accord here and judge not that ye be not judge. without knowing him(or anyone really) should we not give them the benefit of the doubt? just my 2¢

First the scriptures teach don't judge unrighteous judgement, it does not say don't judge.
Second hinting he could of been exed in error is a serious judgement against the leadership of the church, so you are the one who is judging.
Third, No I give the benefit of the doubt to the process, and considering his previous standing in the church and that he has not been a critic of the church it can only be due to a personal worthiness issue.

[MMbelieve]

Please pray for his wife. The pain and public humiliation she is experiencing right now must be almost unbearable for a righteous daughter of our Heavenly Father to have to endure, especially at her age and station in life, all because of something her husband has done.

True. Women marry a man for status, and when he loses his power, they are humiliated. At least I think that is what you are saying.

Church is for status, just as Jesus wanted.

Status...don't think so. More like the shame of adultry or something.

So many bitter men on this forum.

[Red]

its funny how almost everyone jumps to the conclusion that this man sinned and needs to repent, no one has heard what he did yet most jump to assumptions. (I know i will get ridiculed for say this) but do you think its possible the excommunication was done in error? Not a single person took that into consideration nor i doubt many will. There have been some men of God that has been excommunicated. Maybe we should take our own religious belief into accord here and judge not that ye be not judge. without knowing him(or anyone really) should we not give them the benefit of the doubt? just my 2¢

First the scriptures teach don't judge unrighteous judgement, it does not say don't judge.
Second hinting he could of been exed in error is a serious judgement against the leadership of the church, so you are the one who is judging.
Third, No I give the benefit of the doubt to the process, and considering his previous standing in the church and that he has not been a critic of the church it can only be due to a personal worthiness issue.

IMG_0855.JPG (16.06 KiB) Viewed 1352 times

[paid2play]

its funny how almost everyone jumps to the conclusion that this man sinned and needs to repent, no one has heard what he did yet most jump to assumptions. (I know i will get ridiculed for say this) but do you think its possible the excommunication was done in error? Not a single person took that into consideration nor i doubt many will. There have been some men of God that has been excommunicated. Maybe we should take our own religious belief into accord here and judge not that ye be not judge. without knowing him(or anyone really) should we not give them the benefit of the doubt? just my 2¢

First the scriptures teach don't judge unrighteous judgement, it does not say don't judge.
Second hinting he could of been exed in error is a serious judgement against the leadership of the church, so you are the one who is judging.
Third, No I give the benefit of the doubt to the process, and considering his previous standing in the church and that he has not been a critic of the church it can only be due to a personal worthiness issue.

It does tell us to Judge "righteously" which most aren't of course cause everyone is thinking he did something wrong or sinned (which of course he is a sinner, we all are) so of course we are not judging righteously or no one wouldnt have made assumptions right away, plus what i quoted was Matthew 7:1-2...you assume to much, just because i said the excommunication could have been done in error wasn't me judging, it was just a person keeping an open mind to the possibility that the "natural man" is an enemy of God (even the prophet is a natural man), not saying he is an enemy of God just saying that man errors and most hold the 12 and the presidency (Or as you put it the "Process" which is in essence saying the higher ups from my assumptions from what your saying) as men that would never make a fault or could never be wrong, which I don't agree with holding a man to such high esteem (to me that is idolism) only God should have such obedience from us.

[LDS Physician]

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.

[brlenox]

Please pray for his wife. The pain and public humiliation she is experiencing right now must be almost unbearable for a righteous daughter of our Heavenly Father to have to endure, especially at her age and station in life, all because of something her husband has done.

True. Women marry a man for status, and when he loses his power, they are humiliated. At least I think that is what you are saying.

Church is for status, just as Jesus wanted.

Status...don't think so. More like the shame of adultry or something.

So many bitter men on this forum.

Ohh!!! Haaa!! Haaa!! :)) I'm about to bust a gut (and that's saying something). You didn't just say that did you? :)) Considering the source that's the funniest thing I've heard in a week... :)) :))

[Matchmaker]

Please pray for his wife. The pain and public humiliation she is experiencing right now must be almost unbearable for a righteous daughter of our Heavenly Father to have to endure, especially at her age and station in life, all because of something her husband has done.

True. Women marry a man for status, and when he loses his power, they are humiliated. At least I think that is what you are saying.

Church is for status, just as Jesus wanted.

No. That is not what I was implying. I have never heard anyone say before that a woman marries a man for status. Where did you get that idea from?

[MMbelieve]

Please pray for his wife. The pain and public humiliation she is experiencing right now must be almost unbearable for a righteous daughter of our Heavenly Father to have to endure, especially at her age and station in life, all because of something her husband has done.

True. Women marry a man for status, and when he loses his power, they are humiliated. At least I think that is what you are saying.

Church is for status, just as Jesus wanted.

Status...don't think so. More like the shame of adultry or something.

So many bitter men on this forum.

Ohh!!! Haaa!! Haaa!! :)) I'm about to bust a gut (and that's saying something). You didn't just say that did you? :)) Considering the source that's the funniest thing I've heard in a week... :)) :))

So im bitter because I don't agree with you or fall in line with what you believe I should do think feel and speak? Really?

And ya, there are some men on here that take a stab at women because they are bitter from divorces or whatever else. They make generalized statements that lump all women into their jaded views.

I see more women bashing than men bashing. And I don't recall bashing men or displaying I'm bitter towards them or lump all men in the same cateogry (like I see way too often about women). If I have then that surely was a mistake because I do love men and think they are great and very much needed and valued for what they bring and who they are.

Now, who can say that about women? Without stipulations of any kind?

Any you sir are constantly mocking women for who they are by displaying whining statements meant to make fun of how you think women behave. You may have a grand view of women but I question the angle when you chose to make fun and mock when I don't agree with you.

Glad I gave you a good laugh - laughing is healthy and de-stresses. And I won the award for the week, awesome!

[brlenox]

True. Women marry a man for status, and when he loses his power, they are humiliated. At least I think that is what you are saying.

Church is for status, just as Jesus wanted.

Status...don't think so. More like the shame of adultry or something.

So many bitter men on this forum.

Ohh!!! Haaa!! Haaa!! :)) I'm about to bust a gut (and that's saying something). You didn't just say that did you? :)) Considering the source that's the funniest thing I've heard in a week... :)) :))

So im bitter because I don't agree with you or fall in line with what you believe I should do think feel and speak? Really?

And ya, there are some men on here that take a stab at women because they are bitter from divorces or whatever else. They make generalized statements that lump all women into their jaded views.

Like this one?

"So many bitter men on this forum."

Yep...you are a fun one! :ymparty:

[MMbelieve]

Status...don't think so. More like the shame of adultry or something.

So many bitter men on this forum.

Ohh!!! Haaa!! Haaa!! :)) I'm about to bust a gut (and that's saying something). You didn't just say that did you? :)) Considering the source that's the funniest thing I've heard in a week... :)) :))

So im bitter because I don't agree with you or fall in line with what you believe I should do think feel and speak? Really?

And ya, there are some men on here that take a stab at women because they are bitter from divorces or whatever else. They make generalized statements that lump all women into their jaded views.

Like this one?

"So many bitter men on this forum."

Yep...you are a fun one! :ymparty:

Nice try

"So many" doesn't reference all or generalize an entire gender. "So many" is referencing a vague quantity as an exception to the majority. I do not think men in general are bitter.

But your trying to be funny