We'll probably find out what happened eventually, but this excommunication is certainly unusual.

It's unusual for the church to excommunicate a GA at all, let alone a top-level seventy. It's also unusual for the church to make a statement reassuring the world that the disciplinary action was not due to apostasy or belief issues.

The church hates bad publicity and the Q15 would have done everything in their power to hush this situation up if they could have. If they thought they could get away with it, they could have put Hamula on emeritus status and spread rumors about health issues.

What does that leave for possible causes? Adultery is the gold standard for high level excommunications. That would also include a same-sex dalliance. The church might try to hide an adulterous affair by a GA, but if too many people knew about it, they would have no choice but to excommunicate the offender. It also fits with the church's statement that this was not about apostasy.

If Hamula had committed some ugly crime (murder, child sex, etc.), the church would be anxious to distance itself from him, and would welcome speculation about apostasy. That makes such crimes an unlikely reason for the excommunication.

Financial crimes, such as misappropriation of tithing funds, are an easy path to excommunication for most people. However, at high levels in the church, finances are a little more mixed. A financial crime would be easier for the church to hide, and they probably would have settled this quietly, again with emeritus status and rumors of health issues.

What if Hamula really is a non-believer or has become sufficiently opposed to church doctrines and policies that it forced the church to excommunicate him? Then there is no way the church would have published a statement that the excommunication was not due to apostasy. If Hamula later came out against the church, it would brand the Q15 as liars and publicly embarrass the church.

It is highly likely that Hamula (along with the other GAs) has received the second anointing. It is also likely that the church has sufficient contractual and financial hooks into him that he will never be free to discuss the church's dirty laundry. Whatever happened, I suspect that the church was forced to excommunicate him because his actions are known to too many people, but that he will remain in the fold, receiving payments from the church in exchange for his silence.

I hope that I'm wrong and that he makes a public break with the church, but I think that outcome is unlikely.

The most telling part is that the church has made this so public. Usually these things are kept quiet and confidential, so the church wanted to go public before he could.

The fact that he worked in the historical department has to enter into this in some way.

That bit about the Second Anointing was a question that came into my mind last evening when I was triggered into thinking about this again by again encountering the two sister missionaries who have darkened my door at two of the most inconvenient times imaginable.

These are some real theolegal conundrums for Dallin Oaks to get the folks at Kirton & McConkie to figure out.

Do the 12 put their blood on a Joseph's seer stone, engage in the true order of prayer (pre-1990 version), and make his calling and election unsure? :)

How does the church carry out a binding (heaven & earth) excommunication on someone with the second anointing?

The first question I have is just silly, but no idea.

One work around for the second question would be to look at the sealing power as a precedent. You could have an excommunication for time only, rather than time and all eternity. That's reserved for really "dangerous" people like John Dehlin.

Another possibility is that a revocation of all your "blessings" is just that--including the second anointing, so don't cross us thinking that Heavenly Father will let you off the hook in the hereafter.

They probably threatened to kick his correlated a** all the way down to the Telestial Kingdom....

He was probably a masturbator....

I have a different read on this. I think Jim Hamula learned that the whole thing is a con and finally spoke out and this is why they kicked him out.

The church immediately claimed that Hamula was not X'd for apostasy or being disillusioned. They did not say he was X'd for disbelief. To me, this suggests that the so-called brethren were trying to get out in front of this story and deflect attention away from any belief issues that Hamula may have raised.


The Church rarely, if ever, admits that members leave simply due to disbelief. There is always some other reason for leaving such as being offended or disagreeing with the "brethren", sinning or not wanting to follow the commandments, or pride. Admitting that people leave due to disbelief is very threatening to the church as an institution because such an admission acknowledges that the Church might not be true. In particular, a general authority leaving due to disbelief would be devastating and might open the flood gates. In my mind, this is why the Church was very vague about why they kicked Hamula out.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/09/2017 03:38PM by merryprankster123.

It's hard to work in the correlation department and not disbelieve. His mistake would have been being honest about it. The message to the remaining 69: Keep your doubts to yourself.

Pushing for more honest correlated materials wouldn't rise to apostasy, but it would be an affront to the top brass' authoritah.

That's only effective if they can keep him silent. If they could have kept him silent, why bother with the high profile excommunication.

If he comes out about his disbelief, then the differences between that and "apostasy" and "disillusionment" become meaningless and the church is caught in a very public lie.

Even the Q15 aren't naive enough to do that.

I appreciate the careful study of the church's statement, but I don't think that 'doubt' or 'disbelief' is something that one can be excommunicated for.

I express my doubts often, and no leader has even hinted at excommunication as a recourse. Additionally, disbelief doesn't fall under apostasy (I don't think).

If he had doubts or no longer believed, I'd expect a more soft exit from leadership (emeritus status).

I thought disbelief was apostasy. Here's the Wiki definition. Laughing at the last paragraph. Apparently Wiki has not met us ex cult members who proudly call ourselves apostates.


~~~~~~~~~~

Apostasy (/əˈpɒstəsi/; Greek: ἀποστασία apostasia, "a defection or revolt") is the formal disaffiliation from, or abandonment or renunciation of a religion by a person. It can also be defined within the broader context of embracing an opinion contrary to one's previous beliefs.[1] One who "commits apostasy" (or who apostatizes) is known as an apostate. The term apostasy is used by sociologists to mean renunciation and criticism of, or opposition to, a person's former religion, in a technical sense and without pejorative connotation.


Apostasy is generally not a self-definition: few former believers call themselves apostates because of the negative connotation of the term.

You can believe or disbelieve just about anything you want as long as you don't look to share those beliefs with other members. When you teach your ideas or promote your disbelief, that's when the Church decides you crossed the line into apostasy. With him, there was no public declaration of disbelief and no attempt to change other's minds, therefore no official apostasy.

I'm not sure if there is an oath or promise when you become a GA that demands more loyalty than that of a rank and file member. If so, maybe that's where he crossed a line. Does anyone know if there is another, stronger expectation put upon GA's?

It wasn't cleaar to me whether the LDS church made it a point in the original release to stipulate that the action was not due to apostasy, or if they responded to an inquiry to that effect.

Does anyone know?

. . . one would expect that it would be quickly leaked as an example of what happens to sexual sinners in a sex-obsessed cult.

On the other hand, if his excommunication was based on "disloyal" criticism or rejection of Mormonism's history and practice of lying about or condoning its changing and offensive doctrine; sordid and recorded history; and/or corrupted and conniving leaders, the Mormon Church might want to keep those reasons hidden from view.

Why? Because those elements of disbelief and dillusionment can be much more easily traced and verified through books, public reportage, historical examination/research and other easily-obtainable fact sources.
____


related RfM link: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2004706



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 08/09/2017 05:08PM by steve benson.

Forgive me as I have not been here in a long time. Was Grant Palmer's GA source ever revealed?

Here is my wild speculation.

They had to ex him. They exed him BECAUSE of damage control.

1. Either the issue is that big - it could still blow up if it is also illegal.

2. He refused to or showed no signs of remorse.

3. Or there is a third party and they pushed it with threats of going public which tied the church hands.

Either way you look at it, they don't ex a GA over something small, so whatever it is, it is big enough and big enough for them to be forced to come out fighting with lines like it was not apostasy and basically dumping on the guy.

APOSTASY is defined by Merriam-Webster as: A giving up or an act of refusing to follow, obey, or recognize a religious faith.
also, it is: abandonment of a previous loyalty.


SO, with that said, it IS exactly what TSCC says it is not!

I was told to keep my mouth shut and not talk to anyone else about the FLOOD of evidence I tripped upon. My mind was shot!!! A shotgun blast to the head can't compare to what the mountain of evidence against the fake church did for my sense of REALITY- REALLY??? I read and listened to testimony after another, for hours, of WHY folks were leaving TSCC? Absolutely everything I lived for POOFED away. A FAKE religion? For 40+ years??? Long time for a fake god and fake promises?

I am gonna start a new wave religion for athiests, agnostics, and ex-mos. It's gonna be great. There's NOTHING to it. Get it?

Just a random thought. Maybe there's a major schism that is developing within the ranks of church administration. Therefore, the church is making a strong arm message. You know that Deputy Barney Fife moment when they "nip it in the bud." Perhaps they are trying to send a strong message that disloyalty within the ranks will not be tolerated. When I served as a mishie along the Texas gulf, there was always the perceived temptation that missionaries would find themselves at a forbidden beach during spring break. My MP would start barking stern warnings about staying clear of the beach in January. By the zone conference in March, he was announcing that he had to send home several elders for attending spring break. I finally got close to the AP and he told me the dirty secret of the mission. While it was true that my MP was indeed sending missionaries home in March, it had nothing to do with beaches or spring break. The MP would simply purge unworthy missionaries in Spring and another round in Fall. The ones in Fall were supposedly partying in Mexico. That was another fib to scare missionaries to follow the rules.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/09/2017 04:46PM by messygoop.

If it wasn't for apostasy, why else would he be ex'd?

It's almost always for some sexual sin.

I'm going to guess adultery.

I'm going to guess that at 70 and above, adultery is much less relevant than "the brand". Maybe if the adultery is seen as a risk to the brand, but what's a bigger risk is dissent within the ranks.

It looks very suspicious that a history and correlation guy would be tossed out. The church's secrecy just fuels the suspicions. I'll bet they made him sign a non-disclosure contract in exchange for keeping (or not having to pay back) certain benefits.

The church wants everyone to think it's adultery. That makes it his fault and not theirs.

I'm betting there's more to it than that, and they are legalistically splitting hairs. I think there's a major element of disbelief and possibly being unwilling to "obey" and keep on deceiving members. So the church is getting out in front of it for damage control.

I'm going with Occum's Razor ie, the simplest answer is most likely the logical one.

Besides, the church sets people up to fail. It's only a matter of time and question of when.

People weren't meant to be perfect all of the time. For as unrealistic expectations the church has for its members, there will be those who will ultimately be failed by that institution just based on the perfectionist principle.

When people fall from grace, whether a High Quorum leader or anyone else in Mormonism, it's almost inevitable they'll be shown the door. And then the shunning begins.

People don't fail the church - the church fails its members.

Well, if it's not apostasy, Occam's razor suggests gay sex. Getting exed for straight sex is unlikely. I hope Bro Hamula comes out of the closet and this thing goes off like a nuclear bomb.

Hamula was involved in the CCNZ deal which screwed over the local Maori population.

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1955105

https://www.cityweekly.net/utah/warrior-spirit/Content?oid=4802182

Seems to have been a church dick as an Area Authority. Wonder if he was also a church dick as a BP, SP (courts of love etc) and MP. If so, he deserves all the public humiliation he gets. The only ones to feel sorry for are his family members.

I haven't kept up with the church's nastiness in New Zealand, but the articles I did read sound like it was a typical LDS screw job. Similar to what they tried to do in Hawaii.

While in New Zealand maybe Hamula saw piles of money coming from LDS,Inc and decided to open a couple of small private bank accounts and funnel a little bit of money into them.
That would be very TBM Mormon of him and he could still claim his faith in LDS, Inc.

His wife is grieving her loss of standing in the church. She won't be married to a general authority anymore and that is such an important status symbol. The wife & kids will probably lose a bunch of "friends" in high places. Now they will find out who their friends really are.

One of my brothers who was a bishop when he shared this priceless information with me, said if a worthy priesthood holder had an affair and his wife was overweight, the affair was the wives's
fault. No joke.

I don't think we will hear a peep from Hamula on his excommunication because the church probably has some sort of pressure over him, probably in the form of some loan that he doesn't have to pay back if he keeps quiet.

I have heard that the church gives its GA's loans in excess of $100k with the understanding that they don't have to pay this money back if they stay loyal.

Excommunicating a GA is a big deal because this could trigger doubt in other members minds about their testimony. If Hamula left due to disbelief then that would shake the faith of the members who looked up to him.

Some of the speculation posted here is that the "loan" is closer to $1 million. And who knows what other salary and benefits provided to him over the years might be subject to clawback provisions.

A figure as small as $100K would not be a very good deterrent, as that amount could be crowd-sourced or obtained as an advance in a tell-all book deal.

Do TBMs now have to put a sticker over Hamula's face on their framed church leadership prints? Inquiring minds must know.

I belong to a Facebook group of 2249 very well-assimilated followers of the glorious gospel and there has not been one thread discussing this claim of some people here that some General Authority, a man called by God through revelation, was excommunicated. Thus its possibly a bad rumor being spread by the minions of Satan. And maybe when you folks think "wow this Honest TBM is right on things without any cluelessness at all" then you will possibly inclined to getting yourself on the path to re-assimilation into obedience to all of the Brethren, including this beloved Elder Hamula.

And besides we have so many callings, responsibilities, and burdens to bear in the Church that we don't have time to read any news or delve into stories that aren't considered important by the Brethren for us to think about. We got to be very careful and guarded when learning things because that pesky Lucifer could always try to plant a Doubt in our brains. So we say "get thee hence oh evil Doubt" and focus on other things. For example, I ought to have the 5 youngest children at home get on the clothes we just bought them at DI so we can go out and do some BRT'ing with the neighbors so they will want to learn more about our wondrous Church so they can find out for themselves that we're the most honest/transparent Church ever so they can get fully assimilated :) When investigators find out how open-minded we are and think "gosh these people are so open-minded in trying to find the truth so I want to be part of this Mormonism movement" then we have a golden contact :)

Honest TBM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... For example, I ought to have the 5
> youngest children at home get on the clothes we
> just bought them at DI so we can go out and do
> some BRT'ing with the neighbors...

THANKS A LOT, DUDE!!! I'd nearly forgotten that acronym (BRT - Build Relationships of Trust), but now you've dredged it up from the dark recesses of my memory where I put all my negative thoughts!

/s

Honest TBM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> So we say "get thee hence oh evil Doubt" and focus on
> other things. For example, I ought to have the 5
> youngest children at home get on the clothes we
> just bought them at DI


Well, Honest TBM, you better get the whole family stylin' at DI, 'cause the glorious, gospelly true church sold DI to the State of Utah for $7.5 million dollars for a homeless shelter. Hurry while supplies last!

If he was part of the church history department, perhaps this has nothing to do with his own disbelief or lack of faith.

Who was it that was over putting the new church essays out and that new Joseph Smith video (where J.S. is all angst about dirty thoughts rather than what church is the real one).

Supposedly this G.A.'s BIL is an exmormon or something like that and has had long discussions with Hamula. It could be that Hamula has interjected some of this stuff into these videos and essays.

If that is the case, Hamula could be TBM, dyed and hardcore and yet have some irritated official coming down on him (I know I might if I were LDS and trying to have everything look good and nice in the LDS faith).

Or, it could have to do with that link someone posted with that New Zealand flair up. Perhaps he was behind threats and such to various church members and it wasn't approved by higher ups, which is now coming back to haunt him?

I think you're wrong to assume this is necessarily sexual. Financial is what first came to mind and there are other possibilitues.

My take:

OK, it's really just a supposition, but based on experience working at a university at the highest level...

He didn't commit any horrible "sin." He simply didn't believe anymore and whether he expressed this explicitly or not, someone or some people decided that he was a liability. There must have been enough evidence to excommunicate him, though. Not public but available and aware to those inside.

Maybe there was something he was going to publish or become public that would put the Church in bad light. Not horrible but enough to make them squirm.

He just didn't fit the mold and they got scared.

Maybe they didn't even confront him about it. Just decided that they needed to cut bait, so to speak. A bold move but if you are scared, well, it happens.

What can he do? If he wants to work in Utah he can't come out publicly and say it's BS. He's even thinking about how it might follow him nationally. I don't expect him to say anything negative.

My take.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2017 04:04AM by txrancher.

Interesting perspective "txrancher".

If it's not adultery, Hamula could push that back at TSCC without saying a word - just be seen in lots of public places with his wife, holding hands and snuggling.

That would send a very strong message that it was disbelief or at least something else, because if it was sexual, I don't imagine his wife would be very inclined to be cozying up to him right now.

If not sexual, I would advise Hamula to be seen in SLC with his wife -- smiling boldly like he doesn't have a care in the world. That would play with the heads of the other GA's!

Has someone asked if he was friends with Grant Palmer? History dept. I am 100% certain this was ALL due to the realization of the fraud. There will be more...I wrote it here first.