Posting this anonymously but I have it from a reputable source that he became disillusioned from being exposed to church history When he expressed this to his associates and counterparts the church used its resources to investigate and document some behaviours that would be embarrassing to his family. His silence ensures these issues won't come out which is why the church is being so public about this.....

What is your source?

"Anon" says it's reputable. If a "reputable source" is good enough for the NY Times, it's good enough for me!

Note to Boner: your post on the original thread didn't offend me in that it was off-color. This once-Christian Scientist learned how to cuss as well as shoot a rifle at Parris Island. It was just the play* on words.

*"play" as in "self-pleasure"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2017 11:42PM by caffiend.

I admit, it was BAD :)

I don't think the church ever excommunicates anyone who has had a second annointing unless the person either somehow denies the holy ghost or commits a murder (the only way to lose your guaranteed seat in the CK after getting your second annointing). Since the church publicly said that this guy didn't commit apostacy and since it is very unlikely that he killed anyone, I find it more likely that he didn't ever get a second annointing.

The only reason Tom Philips can question and emberras the church and doesn't get exed is that he once had his second annointing. I suspect that even on the highest levels in the church, all of the leaders respect that within certain bounds. For them, it is just self-serving to know they have some leeway and exceptional leniency if they themselves ever screw up.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2017 11:44PM by azsteve.

I've read that same guarantee re/the second annointing.

I think that promise was mainly useful for Joseph Smith when he was trying to talk couples out of their young daughters.

What do you mean just "young daughters?:

Many times it was the wife he wanted to hop in the bed with.

The reason why William Law left the TSSC and create the Nauvoo Expositor was JSJr wanted to bed his wife, Sara Law.

He was the Director of the Correlation department, the church's version of the FBI. Those are the guys who find sinners amongst otherwise normal church members, and make sure that the person's bishop and stake president get the incriminating information. Though the church doesn't like to admit that the correlation department even exists, they have admitted publicly that it does exist. So it's possible that he was set up and this could be political.

That would be the Strengthening the Church Members committee.
The correlation committee is responsible for making sure that the entire church does everything exactly the same.

I think you're correct about the correlation committee vs the strengthening the members committee. My mistake.

Correlation is the department that reviews all church publications and other materials for doctrinal consistency.

Well that's a unicorn if there ever was one. LDS inc wouldn't know doctrinal consistency if it tickled their balls.

Wait...since when do the church leaders have balls???!!!

Could he have been themaster's cousin Vinny?

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1959745,1959745#msg-1959745

Or, could he have been *themaster* who's not here anymore either?

Didn't want to give back the million dollars

I only have one question. How many people did he subject to a court of love over his career? Choke on it hypocrite.

When George P Lee was excommunicated, some of his relatives were in my ward and were very upset because he claimed he was exed for calling out the church for not giving the Lamanites their rightful place in the church.

But the truth was that he had molested a child, telling her that he received revelation that he was entitled to marry her in polygamy. (She was 12.) He later took a plea deal to a lesser charge of attempting to molest a child and had to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.

My hunch about this excommunication is that something similar will come out. There's no reason to excommunicate a general authority if its not criminal. Disfellowship is more common as a first step if someone is in "apostasy." There's a lot of negotiation with apostasy, lots of warnings, and ultimatums over a period of time.

This is too sudden for apostasy. If they had reason to suspect him of something less serious than a criminal act, they would have released him when they first heard and then investigated and made him go through the ordeal of explaining himself and agreeing to obey them or not. But something criminal, or highly immoral, where there's an accuser with real evidence would have proceeded with urgency. Whatever happened, they found out and had him exed before having time to first remove him from his calling.

The Deseret News article said the church "confirmed" it was not apostasy or disillusionment which implies they asked the church the question and got confirmation only--not that the church took the initiative to say that. I predict they will soon say it was "conduct unbecoming a member" like they did with George P Lee. I would suspect, since they don't excommunicate general authorities for lesser things, that this is going to be something really horrible--like one of his children accusing him of molestation, or maybe a church member now grown.

This might be a moment when the church is doing the right thing rather than reacting to disbelief. I hope we get more information but I suspect it will take time to come out.

I have no inside knowledge of this case. Bear that in mind.

I would, however, be highly surprised if he had not received his second anointing. The standard is for people at, or just after, the SP level to get that ordinance. It is almost universal for people chosen as GAs to have enjoyed that "blessing." I therefore think itt inconceivable that a member of the 1Q70, the second highest quorum in the church, would not have had his.

The church does in fact excommunicate people who have had their 2As (the old patriarch and Lee are examples). The Q15 can do whatever they want regarding excommunication in this world even if they believe the excommunication will lose its efficacy after the resurrection. The only question that matters for the Church is the impact on its reputation. In most cases that would militate in favor of not excommunicating senior leaders since doing so would bring media attention to that person. I suspect, parenthetically, that that is why they haven't gone after Tom Phillips.

If this 70 has lost faith and posed some danger of retiring or going public, however, the church would have had a strong incentive to do exactly as the OP (for whom I cannot vouch) writes. It would have decided to oust the 70, then dig up dirt to discredit him, and then "confirm" to the public that he was not being excommunicated for apostasy. That is what they did to Michael Quinn, for instance who was not (nudge, nudge) punished for apostasy.

If the intention was to discredit this 70, the discussion in this thread suggests that the church has achieved its ends. Based almost solely on statements from the church, people here are suggesting he molested children.

Remember: the church likes to slander its challengers. It has more resources than single person or family (unless your name is Huntsman), and hence can control at least the early rounds of the public discussion. It follows that if we ex-mos find ourselves tempted to believe the worst of this man, we should step back and consider the possibility that the church is subtly manipulating us. Mormonism has nearly 200 years of experience in this game.

I agree with you. It is inconceivable to me that a 1Q70 would not have received the 2nd anointing.

The weird thing is, the church could have handled this a lot more quietly. They could have given him emeritus status, let the dust settle, and then let his home ward deal with any indiscretions. The fact that this was handled in such a public manner tells me that higher ups are very, very upset with him. And I don't think that is due to a garden-variety sexual indiscretion.

No, this isn't garden variety sexual sin. My money is on sexual sin of the highly criminal variety. Like rape or pedophilia.

The OP's reasoning, sadly, makes the most sense to me. It sounds exactly like something the church would do in order to cover its sorry sagging ass.

The church slant is "absolutely, definitely, totally not apostasy" which translates to "not our fault." Of course the church would have to say that. It always says "not our fault."

I'm still going with apostasy (which had been brewing for a long time out of public view, which made it appear to occur all of a sudden). Any other reason buys into the church narrative. And the church has always been so very honest in the past, right?

Only thing that makes any sense is: 1) homosexuality, 2) adultery, 3) pedophilia, 4) embezzlement. Don't know that Hamula was in any place to have much say over money. So thank God, it's only a mere sexual sin, and not loss of his testimonkey. I'm with those who say he'll be rebaptized in a year, never again to serve as so much as a door greeter.

I think he had a cup of coffee.

HOT coffee, even worse!

I think they threatened to kick his correlated a** all the way down to the Telestial Kingdom...